wWhy are liberals so easily brain washed into thinking government must give them something.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Yes, that's why conservatives all refuse their social security distributions.

[Freedom&Liberty]

They're just trying to get back what was stolen from them, Moe.

[antiquity]

Yes, that's why conservatives all refuse their social security distributions.

Since I paid into the system for 45 years, yeah, I expect to get something back. It is hardly free stuff for doing nothing which liberals are so used to getting.

[Cyclone Ranger]

So you want entitlements for yourself, but wish to deny them to others?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Liberals can't begin to constitutionally or morally justify what they've done, but if they ended all social programs it would be a start.

[antiquity]

So you want entitlements for yourself, but wish to deny them to others?

SS is not an entitlement, I paid into an insurance policy and anyone who paid into the system is entitled to collect when the policy is up just as an IRA, annuity, company retirement plan or any other retirement plan pays off when you retire.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Of course Social Security is an entitlement program. Don't be ridiculous.

[antiquity]

If its an entitlement program, I want all the money back that I put into it over the last 45 years.

[Cyclone Ranger]

If its an entitlement program, I want all the money back that I put into it over the last 45 years.

Are you entitled to it?

[9ball8]

Of course he's entitled to it. And supposing he lives at least 10 years into collecting SS, he'll get it all back and more. Of course, A won't look at himself as a leach on society even if he does collect well beyond what he paid in.
-Let's suppose everyone placed a price on what they receive from gov't.
Could we get a better deal from the private sector for our roads, food safety, law, postal service, libraries, etc? I've yet to see conservatives look at it from that angle. Unfortunately, I've seen very few liberals consider that challenge to narrow whining from conservatives. Too bad, considering the "private sector" includes non-profits.

[Malcolm Wright]

The areas Malcolm pointed are typically the reasons why men formed societies to begin with s it's not correct to blame conservatives for the evolutionary path of mankind

That's completely false. We did not form societies in order to have police, courts, the Christian God, and a Market God.
Police and courts were formed as necessities for a stable society. The Christian God was certainly not a goal of the formation of society. And the market as decision-maker for the way we lead our lives wasn't a goal either. Complete fail Caddis.

Furthermore, you failed to perceive that I'm not blaming conservatives for anything in this thread. You're projecting your own desire to blame liberals - assuming that since you want to blame, I do too. I was quite clear in saying that is not the aim of my posting here - I was merely quashing the contention that only liberals give up power to others.

But to address your belief of why we formed societies: we did so because there is safety and advantage in numbers. Tacit in that observation is the knowledge that we will take care of each other to a certain degree.

M

[Malcolm Wright]

You no longer have the right to expect anything in exchange. The right and the freedom to decide how your life and labor should be spent, has been forcibly taken by government.

Your first statement is false. Your second statement is partly true.
Many of the things I expect in exchange for what we give to government are actually in place.
As for the freedom to decide how our lives and labor should be spent - that's something we need to work on. It is possible to gain greater control over this, without condemning government in its entirety. But it would involve constructive action, as opposed to just complaining about taxes and big government.

Your freedom has been stolen from you, again. The shameful part is that this time, you GAVE your freedom away. The REALLY shameful part is that you enslaved an entire nation.

Not entirely sure what you are referring to with these broad statements. I only feel less free under Obama insofar as he has eroded constitutional rights, but unlike you who seems to believe the other candidate would not have, I hold no such illusion. Those erosions are part of an agenda that transcends the bipartisan paradigm.

M

[caddis]

That's completely false. We did not form societies in order to have police, courts, the Christian God, and a Market God.
Police and courts were formed as necessities for a stable society. The Christian God was certainly not a goal of the formation of society. And the market as decision-maker for the way we lead our lives wasn't a goal either. Complete fail Caddis.



M

So shared religious beliefs, commerce, and mutual protection are not some of the reasons men formed into societal groups. Got it

[Malcolm Wright]

So shared religious beliefs, commerce, and mutual protection are not some of the reasons men formed into societal groups. Got it

Men banded into groups before there was such a thing as organized religion. The worship of the natural world was the realm of the medicine man, and insofar as it was desirable to have access to a medicine man, yes - it would be a pull for an individual to join a particular group. But that's very different from the point you are inferring - that society formed with the furthering of a religious goal. Religion if you want to call it that, in those times, was a tool to further the hunt, heal individuals, and enhance group cohesion. Those three things are end goals of society. A particular religion is not (unless we're talking about a theocracy).

Commerce - same deal. Foraging and hunting must be successful before primitive man had anything to trade. And foraging and hunting were more successful in groups. Besides, my point was clear: we did not form societies in order to give up power to the market forces.

Mutual protection is absolutely a driving force for the formation of society - I said so when I pointed out there is safety and advantage in numbers. What is confusing you is that police are a response to the possibility of an internal threat - by definition NOT a concern in the forming of society, since before society there were no members of society that could pose a threat - only humans of other groups. In terms of defense and aggression, we formed societies to better be able to defend ourselves from raiding parties from other humans who were already in groups, or to better form raiding parties of our own against smaller groups or individuals. Policing only comes into play once a group exists and needs to establish order within itself.

I hope this clears things up for you.

M

[Cyclone Ranger]

So shared religious beliefs, commerce, and mutual protection are not some of the reasons men formed into societal groups. Got it

Societies formed long before the advent of the relatively advanced economic stage of commerce.

[Malcolm Wright]

Doesn't wash:

Those who give most, expect the least.

Those that give the least (or nothing), expect the most, demand more, and complain regardless.

This begs some demonstration!

Who gives the most? And do they give the most proportionally to what they earn, or the most in an absolute sense? Show that they expect the least...

Who gives the least? Proportionally or absolutely? What do they tend to expect? I hope you remember that large corporations tend to pay little to no taxes, and expect huge hand-outs and bail-outs. Are they the liberals you love to hate?

You live in such a simple world Caddis.

M

[hadit]

Of course he's entitled to it. And supposing he lives at least 10 years into collecting SS, he'll get it all back and more. Of course, A won't look at himself as a leach on society even if he does collect well beyond what he paid in.
-Let's suppose everyone placed a price on what they receive from gov't.
Could we get a better deal from the private sector for our roads, food safety, law, postal service, libraries, etc? I've yet to see conservatives look at it from that angle. Unfortunately, I've seen very few liberals consider that challenge to narrow whining from conservatives. Too bad, considering the "private sector" includes non-profits.

Actually, one of your examples IS an area in which the private sector competes with the government, and DOES give a better deal. Hint, UPS and FedEx. Keep in mind, we're talking better deal, not necessarily lower price.

[antiquity]

Societies formed long before the advent of the relatively advanced economic stage of commerce.

That maybe true, but government welfare is a very recent thing and it has held back advanced economic stages of commerce since its conception.

[caddis]

Societies formed long before the advent of the relatively advanced economic stage of commerce.

No shit, sherlock

[kellyb]

Actually, one of your examples IS an area in which the private sector competes with the government, and DOES give a better deal. Hint, UPS and FedEx. Keep in mind, we're talking better deal, not necessarily lower price.

In the age of email, the USPS probably is wasteful compared to UPS. Most people don't really need a mail carrier coming to their house every day any more, etc.

I'd like to see the USPS scaled down but providing "free-ish" internet instead of just being abolished, tho. To me that makes sense, since we use the internet for so many things the USPS used to do.