Quote from: iustitia on November 27, 2013, 07:28:51 AM
Wow this topic didn't get derailed at all...

Who's fault is that, were you here to make your point and keep it on track?

I made my point in the opening point. Then after a few snarky comments it devolved into debating global warming. That's my fault?

Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 10:31:58 AM
I made my point in the opening point. Then after a few snarky comments it devolved into debating global warming. That's my fault?

Reading comprehension an issue as well I see.
"were you here to make your point and keep it on track?"
Three posts, and you have yet to respond to anyone's points.
If you're not going to expand on the topic or your point, then you have no control over where it goes.

I think your comprehension should be questioned here. This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.

Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
I think your comprehension should be questioned here. This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.

Well you ignored what I tried to tell you, which is that modern political dichotomies reveal a flaw in your system; opinions on government depend as much on the area as they do on the scope.  For example, conservatives will gladly support an amendment preventing by law gays from marrying, but God forbid if we try to mandate that people strap their kids in seatbelts before they go out driving!  Even though the latter activity poses an objective risk while the latter does not; conservatism is divided between fiscal and social measures.  It's not "does this pose a rational risk", but rather "does this conflict with my personal intuitive feelings?"

Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
I think your comprehension should be questioned here. This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.

Some did respond, you ignored them, but you phrased your questions in biased opinion.
Homelessness for example, is neither social or political, if someone wants to be homeless, that is their option, it's a freedom, if they choose otherwise and wind up homeless by no fault of their own, it is neither the govts responsibility or their neighbors to fix another's station in life.
They are free to seek charity of the church, it worked just fine in our Country's infancy, it wasn't until recently the govt usurped this freedom and community responsibility, and stole taxpayers treasure to raise the finical standing of the poor.

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 12:07:18 PM
if they choose otherwise and wind up homeless by no fault of their own, it is neither the govts responsibility or their neighbors to fix another's station in life.
They are free to seek charity of the church, it worked just fine in our Country's infancy, it wasn't until recently the govt usurped this freedom and community responsibility, and stole taxpayers treasure to raise the finical standing of the poor.

Look at pre and post welfare poverty rates in various countries, and tell me church charity was working "just fine".  Not to mention social welfare hardly includes the abolishment of private charity; just think of it as the free market applied to humanitarian aid.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 12:13:29 PM
Look at pre and post welfare poverty rates in various countries, and tell me church charity was working "just fine".  Not to mention social welfare hardly includes the abolishment of private charity; just think of it as the free market applied to humanitarian aid.

Where did I mention "Other Countries"?

Quote from: Solar on November 28, 2013, 01:50:38 PM
Where did I mention "Other Countries"?

American exceptionalism doesn't give you free reign to dismiss all evidence contrary to your claim.  And it still applies to the United States - poverty rates were higher prior to welfare.  Today, we have both welfare and charity.  Nobody said anything about abolishing the latter.

Well to OP, your "new" paradigm isn't new at all, watch the video Solar posted, it has already been discussed many times on this forum. The semantics in trying to combine terms and definitions with few or one historical examples is flawed as you yourself stated in your own post and was pointed out by other posts in this thread...

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 28, 2013, 02:25:15 PM
American exceptionalism doesn't give you free reign to dismiss all evidence contrary to your claim.  And it still applies to the United States - poverty rates were higher prior to welfare.  Today, we have both welfare and charity.  Nobody said anything about abolishing the latter.

Your whole argument is flawed because you are not arguing from a conservative perspective, the role of government is not elimination of poverty, equal redistribution of existing wealth or creation of new wealth, the role of government is quote: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".

Like Solar said, poverty is a choice and in the cases it is not a choice the government that secures liberty still allows poverty struck citizens to "pursue" happiness whatever happiness is to those specific individuals be they of material or spiritual nature.

But lets assume your argument is not flawed just for the fun of it, where exactly does wellfare benefit the poor more than the rich? In both France, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and USA in general over 60-80% of wellfare goes to the middle class and upper classes from which the poor pay comparively more taxes than the middleclass and upper class. (Source: Public Choice III).

But to adress your point directly about "abolishing private charity", you don't need to abolish private charity to eliminate it or reduce it to a insignificant level, when taxation due to wellfare reaches certain amounts the capital private citizens has for charity is reduced which means that the more wellfare you have the less charity you get due to taxation. US citizens pay on average about 10% of their wealth to charity whereas a Froggie or Kraut only gives a pathetic 2% to charity. This means that that the US citizens having more poverty than the average french still gives 5 times more charity than the french. It is innherently immoral and narcissistic to support wellfare rather than charity.

Quote from: iustitia on November 24, 2013, 05:20:57 PM
Let me start by acknowledging my own political sympathies. My beliefs are rooted in classical conservatism and classical *snip*

You could have just pasted this...

The American Form Of Government

I've posted it several times here, but it bears repeating.

-Darth

Quote from: Mountainshield on November 29, 2013, 02:29:50 AM
Well to OP, your "new" paradigm isn't new at all, watch the video Solar posted, it has already been discussed many times on this forum. The semantics in trying to combine terms and definitions with few or one historical examples is flawed as you yourself stated in your own post and was pointed out by other posts in this thread...

Your whole argument is flawed because you are not arguing from a conservative perspective, the role of government is not elimination of poverty, equal redistribution of existing wealth or creation of new wealth, the role of government is quote: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men".

Like Solar said, poverty is a choice and in the cases it is not a choice the government that secures liberty still allows poverty struck citizens to "pursue" happiness whatever happiness is to those specific individuals be they of material or spiritual nature.

But lets assume your argument is not flawed just for the fun of it, where exactly does wellfare benefit the poor more than the rich? In both France, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and USA in general over 60-80% of wellfare goes to the middle class and upper classes from which the poor pay comparively more taxes than the middleclass and upper class. (Source: Public Choice III).

But to adress your point directly about "abolishing private charity", you don't need to abolish private charity to eliminate it or reduce it to a insignificant level, when taxation due to wellfare reaches certain amounts the capital private citizens has for charity is reduced which means that the more wellfare you have the less charity you get due to taxation. US citizens pay on average about 10% of their wealth to charity whereas a Froggie or Kraut only gives a pathetic 2% to charity. This means that that the US citizens having more poverty than the average french still gives 5 times more charity than the french. It is innherently immoral and narcissistic to support wellfare rather than charity.

Well said.
Sometimes when responding to him, I feel like it's literally a clash of cultures, where his is a land of OZ, where one individual is a ruler and illusionist that controls all, yet people are still starving, but since he is trying to feed the wretched masses, he is adored and forgiven, even if he does have to kill millions off to feed the populace.

How is it someone could be against Liberty, the Right to supporting ones own existence and or family?

Quote from: Solar on November 29, 2013, 05:45:46 AM
Well said.
Sometimes when responding to him, I feel like it's literally a clash of cultures, where his is a land of OZ, where one individual is a ruler and illusionist that controls all, yet people are still starving, but since he is trying to feed the wretched masses, he is adored and forgiven, even if he does have to kill millions off to feed the populace.

How is it someone could be against Liberty, the Right to supporting ones own existence and or family?

Was watching "The Hunger Games" last night with my wife, and we had a discussion about the system of government they hypothesize in that scifi universe is in practical terms the same type of society the communists, socialists and green environmentalist wants to implement even though in the movie the visuals of such a society is taken to the satirical.

I think they really do pierceve reality through such a contradictory perspective that there is something as a "free lunch" if the government just legislate it and at the same time they embrace the Malthusian perspective of limited resources that we have to lower the standard of living for the masses to a "sustainable" level at the same time as everything from food, clothing, housing, goods, luxuries and work should be provided by the government for free. Liberty play no role in such a defunct brain chemistry.

Quote from: Mountainshield on November 29, 2013, 06:06:11 AM
Was watching "The Hunger Games" last night with my wife, and we had a discussion about the system of government they hypothesize in that scifi universe is in practical terms the same type of society the communists, socialists and green environmentalist wants to implement even though in the movie the visuals of such a society is taken to the satirical.

I think they really do pierceve reality through such a contradictory perspective that there is something as a "free lunch" if the government just legislate it and at the same time they embrace the Malthusian perspective of limited resources that we have to lower the standard of living for the masses to a "sustainable" level at the same time as everything from food, clothing, housing, goods, luxuries and work should be provided by the government for free. Liberty play no role in such a defunct brain chemistry.

The Hunger Games is the perfect example of a leftist Utopia.
They take the economy, destroy it, dole out what few essentials the masses need to survive, and claim there just isn't enough to go around, so many will sacrifice for the greater good.

Quote from: iustitia on November 28, 2013, 11:07:27 AM
This topic was created seeking alternatives to or appraisals of my system, not to control the discussion. The fact that virtually nobody actually made relevant points is why there were no responses from me. All I got were rude remarks and internal bickering of global warming. It's fine, though, because I've gotten more than enough feedback on other forums.

The "topic" was, with all due respect, a randomly-cobbled pile of nonsense.

In Scifi's defense:  yes, of course he is a rabid, mindless dogma-spewing psychotard.   But he at least occasionally PRETENDS to have something like what a rational person can squint and marginally treat as a lame attempt to make a point that's worth dismantling.  That makes someone with no other potential value to society, at the very least, fun to pick on.

You left a vacuum, so the useful idiot filled it.  If you're the most entertaining troll some other forum has to work with, that's their problem.