Five Principles Important to Believe?

[Foxfyre]

those rules dont take fundamental capitalism into account and presume some type of closed fantasy economy.

Okay, take one of them and prove your thesis here. I would accept a logical argument. I don't see how you could come up with one, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The one request I will make is that you don't add unrelated analogies but stick to the statement as stated.

There will be plenty of opportunity to say later that the statement is accurate but irrelevent if that's how it comes out.

 

[Zander]

All five statements are true unequivocally. The difference between Government and Capitalism is that Government operates and takes by threat of force.

 

[Ravi]

Five important principles to understand:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
​

No one is legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
​

Welfare is limited by the amount of time you may be on it.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.​

Well, that seems rather like a duh! comment.

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
​

Right now, about 11% of the population is on welfare...not 50%. Nice hysteria though, I'll give you that.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.​

Sure you can.

If you want to have an honest discussion on welfare and explore ways to reduce the amount of people receiving it you really need to start over.

 

[Oddball]

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
​

Right now, about 11% of the population is on welfare...not 50%. Nice hysteria though, I'll give you that.

That isn't all about welfare. Bureaucrats are even more burdensome drags on the productive sector of the economy, than are those on the dole.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.​

Sure you can.

How?

 

[Darkwind]

Five important principles to understand:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
​

No one is legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

They may not be right now, but it is not because they do not wish to. Your answer does not detract from the truth of the statement.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
​

Welfare is limited by the amount of time you may be on it.

You still do not negate the factual part of the statement. Regardless of how long one is on welfare or how much they receive, they cannot receive it without first having it taken from someone else.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.​

Well, that seems rather like a duh! comment.

Yes it is.

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
​

Right now, about 11% of the population is on welfare...not 50%. Nice hysteria though, I'll give you that.

Again, you fail to address the truth of the statement and you are projecting. It does not say that half the people are on welfare, it says that when half of the people believe. We are almost at that number now.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.​

Sure you can.

In fact, you cannot. You can multiply wealth through effort. Basic model. Energy in for work returned.

If you want to have an honest discussion on welfare and explore ways to reduce the amount of people receiving it you really need to start over.

I think you failed to note that this was a discussion on core philosophy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Five important principles to understand:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
​

No one is legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

​

In this context nobody said anyone is legislating the wealthy out of prosperty. And that has nothing to do with the statement does it. Try to focus here.

The statement is: you cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

True or false? If false, why?

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Welfare is limited by the amount of time you may be on it.

​

Again you seem to have difficulty focusing today. The question may or may not relate to welfare or however much time anybody is on it.

The statement is: What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

True or false? If false, why?

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Well, that seems rather like a duh! comment.

​

Can we assume you gave that one a 'true'? Good. Now we're beginning to focus.

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Right now, about 11% of the population is on welfare...not 50%. Nice hysteria though, I'll give you that.

​

Now Ravi, I'm an eternal optimist and believe the most lunatic, left wing raving liberal is capable of at least some rational thought. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a person is capable of actually addressing a concept or principle. The statement does not refer to the population of any country, let alone this one. It states a concept or principle.

Here, let's simplify it. If half the population is not required to work, and the other half refuses to work because they won't receive compensation for their labor, a nation will not survive. True or false? If false, why?

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Sure you can.

Hooray another answer. But if it can be done, how can it be done?

If you want to have an honest discussion on welfare and explore ways to reduce the amount of people receiving it you really need to start over.

I would be happy to have a discussion on welfare and explore ways to reduce the amount of people receiving it, but right now I am not focused on that. I prefer to be focused on the five principles stated and determine whether they are true or false before we apply them to existing circumstances.

 

[Ravi]

mmmkay...as long as you are agreed with a person is rational. tff...go ahead and have your dishonest discussion of welfare, you are no different than thousands of other koolaid drinkers.

 

[Foxfyre]

mmmkay...as long as you are agreed with a person is rational. tff...go ahead and have your dishonest discussion of welfare, you are no different than thousands of other koolaid drinkers.

Well I'll just have to accept the fact that I can come to decision about whether a principle is valid or not valid, and I can also recognize that the principles involved might or might not apply to welfare, and I acknowledge that you translate that as the same as being a dishonest koolaid drinker. (And you can't answer the questions presented to you.)

But you have a nice day too.

 

[antagon]

those rules dont take fundamental capitalism into account and presume some type of closed fantasy economy.

Okay, take one of them and prove your thesis here. I would accept a logical argument. I don't see how you could come up with one, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The one request I will make is that you don't add unrelated analogies but stick to the statement as stated.

There will be plenty of opportunity to say later that the statement is accurate but irrelevent if that's how it comes out.

i'll have a go at them generally, with no analogy at all.

the tenets pretty much make an assault on welfare. by not considering the role entitlement recipients play in the GDP, merely through their spending on consumables, it presumes that the value of production would sustain, notwithstanding. since the US is a consumer economy, i propose that the function of demand on price and price on wages would translate to lower wages in real life application, should just the welfare recipients alone be removed from the equation.

our tax burden is born by the wealthy few on 'excesses' of earnings which would merely be hoarded. the decreased demand would not inspire investment... a spiral.

i submit that that is why countries without a safety net have low wages and produce goods for countries that do have a safety net.

find an exception of a developed economy which does not to work in this manner and you might be on to something.

otherwise, you'd have to reword those somehow for them to hold water.

note: my arguement is no defense for socialism or the scenarios in your 4th tenet. i speak about the US, our progressive tax policy and our entitlements system as they are today.

 

[Foxfyre]

those rules dont take fundamental capitalism into account and presume some type of closed fantasy economy.

Okay, take one of them and prove your thesis here. I would accept a logical argument. I don't see how you could come up with one, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The one request I will make is that you don't add unrelated analogies but stick to the statement as stated.

There will be plenty of opportunity to say later that the statement is accurate but irrelevent if that's how it comes out.

i'll have a go at them generally, with no analogy at all.

the tenets pretty much make an assault on welfare. by not considering the role entitlement recipients play in the GDP, merely through their spending on consumables, it presumes that the value of production would sustain sustain, notwithstanding. since the US is a consumer economy, i propose that the function of demand on price and price on wages would translate to lower wages in real life application, should just the welfare recipients alone be removed from the equation.

our tax burden is born by the wealthy few on 'excesses' of earnings which would merely be hoarded. the decreased demand would not inspire investment... a spiral.

i submit that that is why countries without a safety net have low wages and produce goods for countries that do have a safety net.

find an exception of a developed economy which does not to work in this manner and you might be on to something.

otherwise, you'd have to reword those somehow for them to hold water.

note: my arguement is no defense for socialism or the scenarios in your 4th tenet. i speak about the US, our progressive tax policy and our entitlements system as they are today.

But the statements do not address welfare, though welfare could be one issue to consider within the principles involved.

The principles involved can apply to loans to other countries, farm/sugar/tobacco subsidies, bailouts to auto manufacturers, concessions made to certain states to get a representative's vote, government contracts, disaster relief, various incentive programs, grants, pork barrel projects, or any number of things.

I'm hoping some members can focus on each statement at face value without trying to read all sorts of other things into them. Most of the conservatives so far seem to be doing that. Can those who tilt left do that? Show me.

 

[antagon]

Okay, take one of them and prove your thesis here. I would accept a logical argument. I don't see how you could come up with one, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The one request I will make is that you don't add unrelated analogies but stick to the statement as stated.

There will be plenty of opportunity to say later that the statement is accurate but irrelevent if that's how it comes out.

i'll have a go at them generally, with no analogy at all.

the tenets pretty much make an assault on welfare. by not considering the role entitlement recipients play in the GDP, merely through their spending on consumables, it presumes that the value of production would sustain sustain, notwithstanding. since the US is a consumer economy, i propose that the function of demand on price and price on wages would translate to lower wages in real life application, should just the welfare recipients alone be removed from the equation.

our tax burden is born by the wealthy few on 'excesses' of earnings which would merely be hoarded. the decreased demand would not inspire investment... a spiral.

i submit that that is why countries without a safety net have low wages and produce goods for countries that do have a safety net.

find an exception of a developed economy which does not to work in this manner and you might be on to something.

otherwise, you'd have to reword those somehow for them to hold water.

note: my arguement is no defense for socialism or the scenarios in your 4th tenet. i speak about the US, our progressive tax policy and our entitlements system as they are today.

But the statements do not address welfare, though welfare could be one issue to consider within the principles involved.

The principles involved can apply to loans to other countries, farm/sugar/tobacco subsidies, bailouts to auto manufacturers, concessions made to certain states to get a representative's vote, government contracts, disaster relief, various incentive programs, grants, pork barrel projects, or any number of things.

I'm hoping some members can focus on each statement at face value without trying to read all sorts of other things into them. Most of the conservatives so far seem to be doing that. Can those who tilt left do that? Show me.

all of the principles have applicability to welfare, c'mon. it talks about the poor, workers and non-workers. no other issue more closely fits with the tenets than welfare. how do these buddies of yours see that differently? arent you 'reading all sorts of other things into them' by presuming 'government contracts' is a better fit to any of these ideas? bizarre. gimme a break...

that was weak, fyre, but im over it...

nevertheless, the idea that economies are closed ignores how capitalism functions. for that reason, because most of the tenets are based on what i called a 'fantasy closed economy', they fail to account for how taxation and spending can facilitate the creation of wealth, and where, within moderation, it is absolutely essential.

i already said you'd have to reword them for them to hold water; right now, because they apply to redistribution of monies in an economy through their explicit wording, you'll have to broaden their focus to escape the points i'd already addressed.

or, can you make an arguement in support of real application of such a closed-loop fantasy?

theres nothing left-tilted about my position. it is just informed, id like to think.

note: my arguement is no defense for socialism or the scenarios in your 4th tenet. i speak about the US, our progressive tax policy and our entitlements system as they are today.

 

[Foxfyre]

i'll have a go at them generally, with no analogy at all.

the tenets pretty much make an assault on welfare. by not considering the role entitlement recipients play in the GDP, merely through their spending on consumables, it presumes that the value of production would sustain sustain, notwithstanding. since the US is a consumer economy, i propose that the function of demand on price and price on wages would translate to lower wages in real life application, should just the welfare recipients alone be removed from the equation.

our tax burden is born by the wealthy few on 'excesses' of earnings which would merely be hoarded. the decreased demand would not inspire investment... a spiral.

i submit that that is why countries without a safety net have low wages and produce goods for countries that do have a safety net.

find an exception of a developed economy which does not to work in this manner and you might be on to something.

otherwise, you'd have to reword those somehow for them to hold water.

note: my arguement is no defense for socialism or the scenarios in your 4th tenet. i speak about the US, our progressive tax policy and our entitlements system as they are today.

But the statements do not address welfare, though welfare could be one issue to consider within the principles involved.

The principles involved can apply to loans to other countries, farm/sugar/tobacco subsidies, bailouts to auto manufacturers, concessions made to certain states to get a representative's vote, government contracts, disaster relief, various incentive programs, grants, pork barrel projects, or any number of things.

I'm hoping some members can focus on each statement at face value without trying to read all sorts of other things into them. Most of the conservatives so far seem to be doing that. Can those who tilt left do that? Show me.

all of the principles have applicability to welfare, c'mon. it talks about the poor, workers and non-workers. no other issue more closely fits with the tenets than welfare. how do these buddies of yours see that differently? arent you 'reading all sorts of other things into them' by presuming 'government contracts' is a better fit to any of these ideas? bizarre. gimme a break...

that was weak, fyre, but im over it...

nevertheless, the idea that economies are closed ignores how capitalism functions. for that reason, because most of the tenets are based on what i called a 'fantasy closed economy', they fail to account for how taxation and spending can facilitate the creation of wealth, and where, within moderation, it is absolutely essential.

i already said you'd have to reword them for them to hold water; right now, because they apply to redistribution of monies in an economy through their explicit wording, you'll have to broaden their focus to escape the points i'd already addressed.

or, can you make an arguement in support of real application of such a closed-loop fantasy?

theres nothing left-tilted about my position. it is just informed, id like to think.

note: my arguement is no defense for socialism or the scenarios in your 4th tenet. i speak about the US, our progressive tax policy and our entitlements system as they are today.

The poor was mentioned but not in the sense of welfare. If you base 'poor' in terms of actual income, I'm probably the poorest member on USMB right now, but am not at all intending to need or apply for welfare.

When you force a larger basic principle into a single narrow ideology or concept such as welfare or capitalism or government contracts, you lose the larger lesson to be learned. When you frame it within a broad spectrum of any and all issues to which it can apply, then you deal with the principle and not a single issue. So far the conservatives have mostly been able to do that. I'm hoping that some left of center can do that too.

Once the principle is established, the issue becomes much easier to discuss.

 

[antagon]

fine. i thought that these were the type of principles worthy of application.

of course some of those youre calling conservatives might fancy revelling in this sort of flawed philosophical banter. ive seen many proclaimed conservatives do so on here.

the real world does not work such that shared rewards make for a net loss, but often a net gain. your five buck against that, however you apply them. worded like they are, i dont see the point in considering inaplicable froth like that.

not 'important to believe', rather, an indication of ignorance to believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

fine. i thought that these were the type of principles worthy of application.

of course some of those youre calling conservatives might fancy revelling in this sort of flawed philosophical banter. ive seen many proclaimed conservatives do so on here.

the real world does not work such that shared rewards make for a net loss, but often a net gain. your five buck against that, however you apply them. worded like they are, i dont see the point in considering inaplicable froth like that.

not 'important to believe', rather, an indication of ignorance to believe.

Okay. Thanks for playing. This is turning out to be remarkably eye opening and probably defines the differences between the way conservatives perceive problems and solutions versus how liberals perceive problems and solutions better than any illustration we could have used.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

All five statements are true unequivocally. The difference between Government and Capitalism is that Government operates and takes by threat of force.

Sounds a lot like capitalism. Let's ask India...

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually I wish to apologize to anybody I've been overly snarky or short with. That was not my intent.

The way I see it, you can discuss the ethics or reality of a principle without using real life examples. There are always anecdotal stories that don't fit the norm and exceptions to every rule, but most of us can usually agree on at least some principles to live by.

Because I see so many applications for the five statements that do not involve welfare, I don’t see any reason to bring welfare or any other specific issues into it until there is some agreement on whether the statements are accurate or not.

But oh well. I’m tired. I’m going to bed. Everybody have a great night.