Five Principles Important to Believe?

[Foxfyre]

I was recently in a discussion related to the fact that almost 50% of Americans currently pay no federal income taxes, and a huge percentage of Americans continue to receive some kind of federal subsidy for various reasons. The discussion revolved around opinions of how long the nation could be sustained when there were many more takers than givers.

Then. . .

Gleanings from this morning's e-mail, source unknown:

Five important principles to understand:

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

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

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

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.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

All these statements are paraphrases from other sources, but in my opinion, each describes a solid conservative principle. And each has real implications for what government policy should be depending on whether you agree or disagree with the statements.

Please check the best answer in the poll and explain why you chose the one you did, or explain why you can't choose an answer.

 

[amrchaos]

1--I agree

2--Too simplistic--need nuances. Can actually think of counter-examples in which a person gains without another person losing anything!! Therefore do not agree

3--replace "government" with "business" and you have capitalisms basic mantra: You cannot gain without taking away from some one else. So why is this an important principle to live by? To make a profit by, I can understand, but why a principle to live by?

4. Why would half the people think this way?? No-that is not the end of a nation.

5. Unless you divide by numbers between 0 and 1!!

 

[Foxfyre]

2--Too simplistic--need nuances. Can actually think of counter-examples in which a person gains without another person losing anything!! Therefore do not agree

Where gain is achieved without participation by anybody else, I agree. But can you think of an example that does require some participation or contribution by another person in which one person gains without contributing anything while another person will not be giving up something?

 

[Foxfyre]

4. Why would half the people think this way?? No-that is not the end of a nation

In purely socialist societies where the government calls all the shots, apparently more than half the people do come to think that way which is why their economies always go into the toilet and the nation itself begins to unravel. Use the USSR as a good example of that.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

]Five important principles to understand:

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

Breaking up the robber barons not only made the former owner of Standard Oil even richer, it helped make many other people more wealthy by enabling others to take a cut.

Ending the aristocracy as a part of the Liberal Revolution in France helped pave the way to the creation of the middle class and near-elimination of the peasantry.

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

serendipity...

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

Clarify. Respect, jobs, suffrage, and other things make your statement false. You need to word it better.

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.

The feudal era, the aristocracy, massive taxes, tribute, and capitalism all disprove this.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

You can by dividing it and investing it into the market to allow it to grow.

All these statements are paraphrases from other sources, but in my opinion, each describes a solid conservative principle.

More evidence that conservatives are ignorant and don't think about the things they say.

Can I change my vote? As I went to respond I realized they're all inaccurate.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

4. Why would half the people think this way?? No-that is not the end of a nation

In purely socialist societies where the government calls all the shots, apparently more than half the people do come to think that way which is why their economies always go into the toilet and the nation itself begins to unravel. Use the USSR as a good example of that.

You don't now socialism, so you see it where it does not exist. The CCCP was a totalitarian oligarchy with a nationalized economy- totally counter the the principles of both communist and socialist ideology.

 

[noose4]

Five important principles to understand:

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

but you can make the impoverished lives a little less awful by helping feed and shelter the less fortunate, and no wealthy person has moved into the poor house because of tax dollars going to programs to help the poor.

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

sounds nice but is bull, most wealth isnt worked for, work doesnt make you rich, the wealthy in this nation get rich through investments and the work of others.

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

see above

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.

indeed so we must end the country club set and put trust fund types to work.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

yes you can, greed is bad, the little guy needs a piece of the pie too.

 

[Oldandtired]

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

serendipity...

Clarify. Respect, jobs, suffrage, and other things make your statement false. You need to word it better.
QUOTE]

Respect is not tangible.....not applicable to the premise of the OP
Jobs come from others...not from government...and if it comes from government, the pay is with tax payer money.
Suffrage? not something given to you....you are born with it.

 

[Oldandtired]

Five important principles to understand:

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

but you can make the impoverished lives a little less awful by helping feed and shelter the less fortunate, and no wealthy person has moved into the poor house because of tax dollars going to programs to help the poor.

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

sounds nice but is bull, most wealth isnt worked for, work doesnt make you rich, the wealthy in this nation get rich through investments and the work of others.



see above

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.

indeed so we must end the country club set and put trust fund types to work.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

yes you can, greed is bad, the little guy needs a piece of the pie too.

In bold.....are you serious with this?
I am wealthy...worked my ass off all my life. Worked 14 hour days the last two weeks so my people that "do the work for me" can have off for the holiday's

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Suffrage? not something given to you....you are born with it.

:facepalm:

 

[noose4]

Five important principles to understand:

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

but you can make the impoverished lives a little less awful by helping feed and shelter the less fortunate, and no wealthy person has moved into the poor house because of tax dollars going to programs to help the poor.



sounds nice but is bull, most wealth isnt worked for, work doesnt make you rich, the wealthy in this nation get rich through investments and the work of others.



see above



indeed so we must end the country club set and put trust fund types to work.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

yes you can, greed is bad, the little guy needs a piece of the pie too.

In bold.....are you serious with this?
I am wealthy...worked my ass off all my life. Worked 14 hour days the last two weeks so my people that "do the work for me" can have off for the holiday's

if you had to work 14 hour days the last 2 weeks you cant be that wealthy.

 

[Oddball]

3--replace "government" with "business" and you have capitalisms basic mantra: You cannot gain without taking away from some one else. So why is this an important principle to live by? To make a profit by, I can understand, but why a principle to live by?

Bullshit. The entire object of capitalistic production is adding value.

Gubmint adds no value to anything, therefore must take from one to give to another.

4. Why would half the people think this way?? No-that is not the end of a nation.

Because it's human nature to take the path of least resistance. As Bastiat pointed out, plunder is much easier than productive work.

5. Unless you divide by numbers between 0 and 1!!

Again, the presumption that capital production is a zero-sum game. A notion that has been debunked for centuries.

 

[Oldandtired]

but you can make the impoverished lives a little less awful by helping feed and shelter the less fortunate, and no wealthy person has moved into the poor house because of tax dollars going to programs to help the poor.



sounds nice but is bull, most wealth isnt worked for, work doesnt make you rich, the wealthy in this nation get rich through investments and the work of others.



see above



indeed so we must end the country club set and put trust fund types to work.



yes you can, greed is bad, the little guy needs a piece of the pie too.

In bold.....are you serious with this?
I am wealthy...worked my ass off all my life. Worked 14 hour days the last two weeks so my people that "do the work for me" can have off for the holiday's

if you had to work 14 hour days the last 2 weeks you cant be that wealthy.

Wow......pretty telling of your type of thinking.
People that became wealthy by working hard, work hard when wealthy.
You truly believe that crap about fortune 500 CEO's doing nothing but drinking martinis and junkets to vegas?
I see YOU are not a real business person.

 

[noose4]

In bold.....are you serious with this?
I am wealthy...worked my ass off all my life. Worked 14 hour days the last two weeks so my people that "do the work for me" can have off for the holiday's

if you had to work 14 hour days the last 2 weeks you cant be that wealthy.

Wow......pretty telling of your type of thinking.
People that became wealthy by working hard, work hard when wealthy.
You truly believe that crap about fortune 500 CEO's doing nothing but drinking martinis and junkets to vegas?
I see YOU are not a real business person.

I see you are not actually wealthy.

 

[Oldandtired]

if you had to work 14 hour days the last 2 weeks you cant be that wealthy.

Wow......pretty telling of your type of thinking.
People that became wealthy by working hard, work hard when wealthy.
You truly believe that crap about fortune 500 CEO's doing nothing but drinking martinis and junkets to vegas?
I see YOU are not a real business person.

I see you are not actually wealthy.

So nothing more to add to the debate?
Did not think so.

 

[noose4]

Wow......pretty telling of your type of thinking.
People that became wealthy by working hard, work hard when wealthy.
You truly believe that crap about fortune 500 CEO's doing nothing but drinking martinis and junkets to vegas?
I see YOU are not a real business person.

I see you are not actually wealthy.

So nothing more to add to the debate?
Did not think so.

I was following your lead.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay folks, some of you are actually focusing here and some are veering way out into left field into unrelated areas.

Abolishment of slavery, desegregation, women's suffrage, and all other civil rights actions did not require any contribution from anybody. It simply put teeth into laws requiring that there be no interference with anybody's exercise of unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Anti-trust laws and laws applying penalities for unethical behavior and certain rules and regulation related to trade and interstate commerce and regulation of commonly shared air space and water ways etc. also require no contribution from anybody. They also secure the unalienable rights of all in the free market.

What we are referring to with the five statements are instances in which there must be participation between two or more parties in the process of the action..

Look at them again.

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

I read this that if you pass laws requiring the rich man to be less rich, that will not increase the status of the poor. It does not presume that you confiscate what the rich man has and give it to the poor man.

So, if Citizen A is required by law to give up half of his wealth, how does that help Citizen B? The premise is that it doesn't.


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

This could have been worded more explicitly, but the obvious intent is that the only way that government has money to give to Citizen B is to take it away from Citizen A. Citizen A worked for it and does not get to enjoy the rewards of his labor. Citizen B did not work for it and gets to enjoy the reward. Whether or not you consider this a moral situation--also a subject for a different discussion--can anybody reasonably state that Citizen A is not denied use of his property in order for Citizen B to have it?

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

This is essentially the same thing as No. 2 but stated in a different way. The government generates no wealth. It only has power to redistribute the wealth that exists. The only way it can give anything to Citizen B is by taking it away from Citizen A. Can anybody quarrel with that?

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.

Whether or not you think this situation exists or has ever existed, how can anybody argue with the logic of the statement?

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

If you have one hundred dollar bill or one hundred one dollar bills, you have the same amount of wealth. Can anybody argue with that?

 

[California Girl]

I voted 'mostly true'... not that I disagree with any of them but I would have worded the poll differently. I think all are true but need a rework on wording.

 

[Foxfyre]

I voted 'mostly true'... not that I disagree with any of them but I would have worded the poll differently. I think all are true but need a rework on wording.

Yeah, I would have worded one of them differently if I had written the initial list. In fact I did word it differently in my previous post.

But it is also true even in the matter of charity. If I give $100 to a poor person, he is not required to work for it while I did work for it and will not have use of it. But my giving up what I worked for is my choice in such a case. I'm sure the statement on the list had in mind the government confiscating what I work for in order to give it to somebody else.

 

[antagon]

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