PhillyKev 0 #26 December 28, 2004 QuoteIf a charity wasted the way the government does, no one would give thema dime. Ever hear of United Way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 December 28, 2004 Weren't they the ones that were holding back money from the victims or 9/11, or was that the Red Cross? It was one of the major charity organizations, I remember that. We had started hearing about it on the news while my daughter was doing a benefit ride for the 9/11 victims. The $1500 she raised didn't go to that charity, but one she found that gave ALL the money collected to the victims.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 December 28, 2004 That was them. They're actually a lot better now then they used to be. A decade or so ago, most of the donations went to "administrative costs" not beneficiaries. There was also a big scandal last year where someone went to jail for stealing funds. But I don't hold that against the whole organization, just like I don't blame the entire UN for the oil-for-food-scandal. There's one on here I can think of that has a double-standard in that regard, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #29 December 28, 2004 QuoteYou seem to have a poor knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. A TRUE Christian pays up willingly: Luke 20:25 "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Holy missing context, Batman! I think Jesus is talking about tax evasion there. I do not believe the Christian ideal of charity is manifested through taxes, siezed by force. Charity is given as the giver sees fit, not seized by the government and handed out as payoffs for votes. Besides, Ceasar's empire wasn't exactly a democracy. Or do you think we should just bend over and give the government whatever it wants? By your logic voting to reduce taxes automatically precludes someone from being a true Christian. Laughable.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #30 December 29, 2004 QuoteI don't believe in socialism. It is incompatable with liberty. Don't take this to be a personal insult, but the idea that socialism is incompatable with liberty shows a poor understanding of both socialism and liberty.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #31 December 29, 2004 I doubt he'll take it as an insult. He'll probably find it quite funny, though. I certainly did.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #32 December 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou seem to have a poor knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. A TRUE Christian pays up willingly: Luke 20:25 "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Holy missing context, Batman! I think Jesus is talking about tax evasion there. I do not believe the Christian ideal of charity is manifested through taxes, siezed by force. Charity is given as the giver sees fit, not seized by the government and handed out as payoffs for votes. Besides, Ceasar's empire wasn't exactly a democracy. Or do you think we should just bend over and give the government whatever it wants? By your logic voting to reduce taxes automatically precludes someone from being a true Christian. Laughable. No-one ever seized my tax money by force. Which state do you live in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 December 29, 2004 QuoteNo-one ever seized my tax money by force. Which state do you live in? Try not paying the taxes and see what happens after a couple years, then get back to us, m'kay?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #34 December 29, 2004 QuoteNo-one ever seized my tax money by force. Which state do you live in? If you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. Hence, forcibly seized. A threat is just as forcible, but perhaps I should have been more precise in my language.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vstar2001 0 #35 December 29, 2004 Being a devoted person that I am, the bible states they we should give 10 % of our earnings.... and since the government takes over 20% of my pay, I figure I am twice the christian that the bible wants me to be........... lolI just am................ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 December 29, 2004 In the words of Reverend Lovejoy from The Simpsons..... "That's 10% off the top, people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #37 December 29, 2004 QuoteDon't take this to be a personal insult, but the idea that socialism is incompatable with liberty shows a poor understanding of both socialism and liberty. I agree with Kennedy. I like to think I have a fairly good grasp on both concepts (Liberty and Socialism), and I do think that, as "big idea" concepts, they are fundamentally incompatible. Socialism is basically on the idea that the government ought to force those with more "stuff" to give up some of it for the benefit of those with less "stuff". Liberty is basically on the idea that government ought to have no right to proactively coerce adults citizens. It's very difficult for the "socialism" folks to force people to give things up if they are following the "liberty" idea that the government cannot proactively coerce the citizens. You can argue a fair bit of semantics around the ideas. For example, what is "freedom" and how does it differ from "liberty"? Or, what is "socialism" and how does it differ from "communism"? And when you begin to examine the real world systems, you find that nothing follows any ideal purely (or even closely). Still, if you boil the concepts down, I do think that Socialism and Liberty are fundamentally incompatible ideals.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 December 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo-one ever seized my tax money by force. Which state do you live in? If you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. Hence, forcibly seized. A threat is just as forcible, but perhaps I should have been more precise in my language. The IRS can also garnish your wages. That's a pretty forcible seizure.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #39 December 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo-one ever seized my tax money by force. Which state do you live in? If you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. Hence, forcibly seized. A threat is just as forcible, but perhaps I should have been more precise in my language. Since this came from a Biblical reference, what happened in Caesar's time? Jesus apparently had no serious issue with paying taxes and expected people to be charitable as well. Come to think of it, Jesus would not have been born in the right place at all had it not been for tax collection by the Roman state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #40 December 30, 2004 Properly implemented, socialism, or marxism (which eliminates a need for a government, which substantially increases liberty, collects taxes only to pay for, at a better price than what the individual can purchase himself, things the individual will purchase anyway. That is it eliminates profit from a market that has sufficient demand to not require profit to motivate innovations. I fail to understand how this is in more at odds with liberty than the exploitation of the poor majority by the rich minority that we call capitalism. Please explain. BTW, I completely agree with you that no country has ever implemented socialism or Marxism in its purest form, and the US long ago went away from a completely capitalist system.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #41 December 30, 2004 And what if I don't want the government to provide for me?--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #42 December 30, 2004 QuoteProperly implemented, socialism, or marxism (which eliminates a need for a government, which substantially increases liberty, collects taxes only to pay for, at a better price than what the individual can purchase himself, things the individual will purchase anyway. That is it eliminates profit from a market that has sufficient demand to not require profit to motivate innovations. Perhaps you need to provide your definition of "Socialism" and "Marxism" (I'm assuming that you define those identically? I'm not sure I would). The basic conflict between a centrally controlled provision of "things the individual would purchase anyway" (how do you decide what the individual would purchase, if you never give them an opportunity to do so, by the way?) is that it must force individuals to give into a central authority, which does the purchasing. If individuals fail to contribute, the system must either (a) expel them from group, or (b) force them to contribute. Otherwise, the whole system falls apart as the free riders graze the commons. The use of option (b), forcing free riders to contribute, is fundamentally at odds with the principle of Liberty (that adult citizens may not be coerced). As a side note, the use of option (a), expelling the free riders, is fully compatible with Liberty--only those who wish to contribute do so, and remain within the system. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to expel non-contributing individuals from large systems (like modern nation states). This is one reason that the only things that come close to functioning Communism (distinct from Socialism, but it seems like this is as close as I can understand your definition of "Socialism/Marxism") are very small systems--nuclear families, small villages organized on communal principles, and the like. These small systems really can resort to expelling non-contributing members, although the closeness of the community usually obviates that necessity, as members bound by ties of friendship and family usually choose to contribute. QuoteI fail to understand how this is in more at odds with liberty than the exploitation of the poor majority by the rich minority that we call capitalism. Please explain. I don't believe that has anything to do with my point. We were discussing the ideals of "Socialism" and "Liberty." "Capitalism" is a whole different discussion. The current US system, which, like all the others, is a melange of various things, does draw some things from a purely "Capitalist" ideology. However, to characterize it as "Capitalism" is as much a misnomer as to characterize it as "Socialism." BTW, if you prefer we can start this discussion over using a "purely" Marxist example. I've got my copy of Capital handy, but if you haven't, there is one here.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #43 December 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf a charity wasted the way the government does, no one would give thema dime. Ever hear of United Way? Even the United Way is more efficient than the government. And that's really saying something. I don't have them handy, but I've seen some (appalling) statistics about percentage of dollars that actually go to helping people (as opposed to employing bureaucrats, lining pockets, etc). As I recall, religious charities were the most efficient, and governments by far the least. If I remember correctly, the most efficient charity organization surveyed was an Islamic charity giving food aid in Palestine.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #44 December 30, 2004 www.give.org/ provides information on thousands of charities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #45 December 30, 2004 QuoteDon't take this to be a personal insult, but the idea that socialism is incompatable with liberty shows a poor understanding of both socialism and liberty. The funniest part of this statement is that you are being taken to task by Tom on the definition and meaning of what you claimed Kennedy didn't know... Your posts are so predictable.... I can see why many here are boycotting them. I think I will join their team!!!! And Boycott too ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #46 December 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteDon't take this to be a personal insult, but the idea that socialism is incompatable with liberty shows a poor understanding of both socialism and liberty. The funniest part of this statement is that you are being taken to task by Tom on the definition and meaning of what you claimed Kennedy didn't know... Your posts are so predictable.... I can see why many here are boycotting them. I think I will join their team!!!! And Boycott too Hee hee Now that is a post worth reading again - Hee Hee - Yup, it was.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #47 December 30, 2004 Wow. Great link. The statistics I saw were in the print version of The Economist, and were drawn, if memory serves, from some UN study. But they were nowhere near as comprehensive. The link you gave is definitely the place to look before giving to charity. Knowing how the money is spent (and how efficiently) is key in making sure that private charities actually work.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 December 30, 2004 Here's another good one along the same lines. http://www.charitynavigator.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #49 December 30, 2004 QuoteYour posts are so predictable.... It's actually pretty easy to predict almost everyone's posts here. I know, for example, that Kallend will give a fairly good "liberal" view, PhillyKev has a more moderate, varied "liberal" with occasional fiscal or gun conservatism, Ron will give a good mainline American "conservative", and Kennedy will almost always post exactly what I'm thinking. The best posts, in my opinion, are the ones made by someone who doesn't share my views, but that make me really think about their position, and my own. I think Billvon gets the nod for best average post quality on these criteria, at least for me personally. Still, the fact that you have a good idea what someone is going to think on an issue is no reason to assume you're 100% correct, and stop reading their posts. And it's certainly no reason to make things personal (which, in my opinion, happens way too much in this forum).-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 December 30, 2004 I was gonna read your post, but figured I knew what you were going to say Good post. Answers the question that is oft asked about "why bother" with SC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
