Why Conservatives just don't get the pope

[NYcarbineer]

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

No it is not theft. There is no intent to steal b/c our government is set up by the supreme law of the land - the US constitution- - to have governance by consent of the governed. There can be no theft by the government for two reasons, government does not formulate intent and even if it could create intent, you consent to the government acts by being a US citizen under the US Constitution.

Do you see that now? You enjoy the benefits of US citizenship and taxes pay for all those benefits that you enjoy. Just b/c you don't like some of the expenditures does not permit you to sabotage the entire tax system as a criminal enterprise.

The intent, under this context, is redistribution. Taking from one and giving to another. The very OP signals wealth redistribution that the pope supposedly advocated. Consent and compliance are two entirely different things. Consent is an individual volition, not a collective one. If 9 of you agree that taxation is fine and I disagree, did i consent, or am I simply in compliance for not attempting to stop the theft. The answer is simple. There is no 'people' and there is no 'society' in such matters, only individuals.

Do you see that now? Probably not.

What benefits I am suppose to be enjoying by having my property confiscated by the government? What consent did I give to the government or the constitution? The consent of being born here? You tyrants just love these questions.

You want anarchy which is never going to happen.

 

[RightDown]

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

No it is not theft. There is no intent to steal b/c our government is set up by the supreme law of the land - the US constitution- - to have governance by consent of the governed. There can be no theft by the government for two reasons, government does not formulate intent and even if it could create intent, you consent to the government acts by being a US citizen under the US Constitution.

Do you see that now? You enjoy the benefits of US citizenship and taxes pay for all those benefits that you enjoy. Just b/c you don't like some of the expenditures does not permit you to sabotage the entire tax system as a criminal enterprise.

The intent, under this context, is redistribution. Taking from one and giving to another. The very OP signals wealth redistribution that the pope supposedly advocated. Consent and compliance are two entirely different things. Consent is an individual volition, not a collective one. If 9 of you agree that taxation is fine and I disagree, did i consent, or am I simply in compliance for not attempting to stop the theft. The answer is simple. There is no 'people' and there is no 'society' in such matters, only individuals.

Do you see that now? Probably not.

What benefits I am suppose to be enjoying by having my property confiscated by the government? What consent did I give to the government or the constitution? The consent of being born here? You tyrants just love these questions.

Under the supreme law of the land you are considered a 'citizen.' The US constitution applies to you.

All government is redistributive in function. You simply don't like it when the government allocates its resources to the poor. That's too bad. You don't like it, change the way government allocates through the system.

Your observation about the individual nature of consent is pretty meaningless. You've never heard of consensus? Besides, if you understood the operation of the constitution as I've pointed out, your status as USA citizen subjects you to the laws by and from the US constitution which include the laws on taxing and spending.

If you don't like the laws, change them or leave the country. Your individual consent is irrelevant. I don't like paying for illegal wars but I am part of the collective country and I am subject to the restrictions and rules of the constitution. So are you.

I'm not a tyrant. I'm just helping you understand how our Constitution operates.

The US did not start the minute you were born and it's not your personal playground. Here's a partial list of things you enjoy b/c of the government:

Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
Public roads.
Rural electrification.
Government subsidized telephone wiring.
Satellite communications.
Police protection.
Military protection.
A criminal justice system.
Fire protection.
Paramedic protection.
An educated workforce.
An immunized workforce.
Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
Student loans.
Government funded research and development.
National Academy of Sciences.
Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Public libraries.
Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
National Biological Service.
National Weather Service
Public job training.
I earned that money; it’s mine

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, if the government declares it legal to take money from one individual and give a portion to someone else, while keeping a portion for themself, that isn't theft?

Some people have a very fucked up sense of what theft is.

it's theft. Whether it has legal authority to take by force or not, its still theft. Humans understood theft for thousands of years predating modern governments.

A very interesting if not absurd post ^^^. Without going into the philosophy of the law, what in your mind allows you to proffer that theft is not defined by the taking of something of value when the legal or moral authority supports such an act?

Would it be just to return borrowed weapons to a lunatic? Or is that theft and a violation of the lunatics Second Amendment Right?

Ripe with far left propaganda.

Once again you use the phrase "far left". A phrase you will not define and have never really thought about. I found TASB and his post absurd, you're several steps retarded from that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If you don't like the laws, change them or leave the country. Your individual consent is irrelevant.

There it is! If you dont like it leave.

otherwise, you've essentially said that as a citizen you get in line and STFU. Youre not an individual and we will take from you as we please. Such authoritarianism used to abhorrent in the USA. Now its common place.

Sad really.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The king used to be the same. The only difference would be that actually vocalizing your opinion of theft would get you beheaded or worse. My how we have "progressed" through the years!

 

[Borillar]

Sigh, sometimes you guys confound me. You spend a lot of time trashing religion, or Christians in particlar but then extol a religious figure because he purportedly conforms with your political viewpoints. Forgive me for saying so, but that's just sad.

Why? Conservatives extoll religious figures when they do the fire and brimstone bit with regards to homosexuality, abortion, and other things that social conservatives love to hate. Why shouldn't Liberals not feel somewhat gratified when a religious leader preaches social justice, peace, and other things that liberals stand for? Are conservatives "trashing" religion now, and Christianity in particular, now that the Pope has come out in favor of some things that conservatives don't like? Was it sad when conservatives extolled religious leaders because they held similar conservative views?

 

[RightDown]

If you don't like the laws, change them or leave the country. Your individual consent is irrelevant.

There it is! If you dont like it leave.

otherwise, you've essentially said that as a citizen you get in line and STFU. Youre not an individual and we will take from you as we please. Such authoritarianism used to abhorrent in the USA. Now its common place.

Sad really.

No. Your understanding apparently comes from some far right Von Mises fantasy that you and only you matter. You're not important. Certainly not moreso than anyone else.

You've countered none of my arguments and you've shown a healthy disrespect for the US Constitution. The contention that "there is no society" is laughably incorrect. The Social Contract is still strong. That sounds like that far right loon Thatcher...there are only individuals and families...good lord, please deliver us from lunatics.

You clearly confuse a representative form of government with an authoritrian far right Nazi-like government.

Shame on you.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

Historical example.

Every time the government has gotten out of the way, the recovery is quick. Every time they've infered, the recovery was prolonged.

The only reason WW2 succeeded at pulling us out of the Depression it because it forced FDR to relax and eliminate all the regulations he had imposed on industry in order to have a fighting chance against our enemies.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, we have a Pope that seems to be preaching the gospel of Christ. What heresy!

Progressivism never was and will never be the Gospel of Christ.

You don't speak for the Christ, now do you?

From time to time I do. I am not going to lie.

You should very much know that.

 

[rightwinger]

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

Historical example.

Every time the government has gotten out of the way, the recovery is quick. Every time they've infered, the recovery was prolonged.

The only reason WW2 succeeded at pulling us out of the Depression it because it forced FDR to relax and eliminate all the regulations he had imposed on industry in order to have a fighting chance against our enemies.

Actually, you have it backwards

In the case of Hoover and Bush it was Government inaction that allowed controllable economic downturns to turn into major economic collapses

It is the standard Republican, let the economy self correct that led to economic disasters

 

[bendog]

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

Historical example.

Every time the government has gotten out of the way, the recovery is quick. Every time they've infered, the recovery was prolonged.

The only reason WW2 succeeded at pulling us out of the Depression it because it forced FDR to relax and eliminate all the regulations he had imposed on industry in order to have a fighting chance against our enemies.

Actually, you have it backwards

In the case of Hoover and Bush it was Government inaction that allowed controllable economic downturns to turn into major economic collapses

It is the standard Republican, let the economy self correct that led to economic disasters

it's as if milton friedman never existed for these guys. And Reagan was a believer. LOL

 

[RightDown]

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

Historical example.

Every time the government has gotten out of the way, the recovery is quick. Every time they've infered, the recovery was prolonged.

The only reason WW2 succeeded at pulling us out of the Depression it because it forced FDR to relax and eliminate all the regulations he had imposed on industry in order to have a fighting chance against our enemies.

I disagree. Markets are no self-regulating. They never have been. Not in the sense comparable to governmental resolution of market failures.


Year %Change in GNP President
---------------------------------
1930 - 9.4% Hoover
1931 - 8.5 Hoover
1932 -13.4 Hoover
1933 - 2.1 Hoover/Roosevelt
1934 + 7.7 Roosevelt
1935 + 8.1 Roosevelt
1936 +14.1 Roosevelt
1937 + 5.0 Roosevelt
1938 - 4.5 Roosevelt
1939 + 7.9 Roosevelt

Look at how the New Deal, enacted in 1933, turned around our economy. What happened in 1938? FDR listened to one of his advisors and started to cut back on gov. spending. That had disasterous results. WWII did not happen for 2 more years as a stimulative phenomenon.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you know there would have been a quick recovery? The boom and bust cycle of unregulated capitalism creates terrific devastation. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery. It depends on what you mean by gov. regulation, I suppose. Look at all the gov. spending for WWII. That helped FDR's recovery immensely. The New Deal was working. The only time it stalled was when FDR took some foolish advice and cut back on spending in the late 1930s causing the recovery to stall out temporarily (until gov. spending was hiked up again).

Historical example.

Every time the government has gotten out of the way, the recovery is quick. Every time they've infered, the recovery was prolonged.

The only reason WW2 succeeded at pulling us out of the Depression it because it forced FDR to relax and eliminate all the regulations he had imposed on industry in order to have a fighting chance against our enemies.

Actually, you have it backwards

In the case of Hoover and Bush it was Government inaction that allowed controllable economic downturns to turn into major economic collapses

It is the standard Republican, let the economy self correct that led to economic disasters

So despite the fact that both Hoover and Bush tried to micromanage the economy, they didn't act? You think FDR ran to the right of Hoover promising to have less government because Hoover didn't act?

That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

So tell me, if it's the exact opposite of what I was saying, why is that when Harding/Coolidge slashed taxes and spending in response to the 1920 Depression they had one of the greatest economic expansions in human history? If your assessment is correct, their inaction should have caused a deeper depression

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're not important. Certainly not moreso than anyone else.

When it comes to my private property I beg to differ. that is, after all, why it is called private property. Not that I expect an authoritarian Statist to understand private property.

You've countered none of my arguments and you've shown a healthy disrespect for the US Constitution. The contention that "there is no society" is laughably incorrect.

No, it isn't. Ther eis no collective, only individuals with individual desires and pursuits. Your first argument was that the govt. had no intent when it takes from individuals. Then you tuyrn around and say that it always has intent when stealing.

The Social Contract is still strong.

You mean the contract that no one ever signed and is a complete figment of Statist imagination? Yeah, it's real strong alright. In fantasyland.

That sounds like that far right loon Thatcher...there are only individuals and families...good lord, please deliver us from lunatics.

Ad hominem doesn't strengthen your "case" any. And it is also correct, there are only individuals. I am not you, you are not me, our needs, wants and pursuits are different. Collectivism disregards all individualism.

You clearly confuse a representative form of government with an authoritrian far right Nazi-like government.

Representative government is a myth. No teveryone is represented and in fact, even less than half are through the ballot process. It's a sham.

You're welcome.

 

[bodecea]

If you don't like the laws, change them or leave the country. Your individual consent is irrelevant.

There it is! If you dont like it leave.

otherwise, you've essentially said that as a citizen you get in line and STFU. Youre not an individual and we will take from you as we please. Such authoritarianism used to abhorrent in the USA. Now its common place.

Sad really.

I made the part you missed bigger.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Pope gets it because he understands the Catholic Church is not about blind doctrine, tradition or the trappings of wealth

It is about people

Unfortunately for him economics is really about people and how they actually behave. And they behave best in an unfettered capitalist system. And that system has done more for poor people in 300 years than the Catholic Church has done in 2000 years.

What is it about you guys?

Why does everything have to be about absolutes? Nobody is going to destroy capitalism. Unfettered capitalism led to the Great Depression in 1929 and the economic collapse of 2008. Why would anyone advocate that?

The pope wants responsible capitalism. Capitalism that is aware of the human impacts of its decisions.

Wrong.
"Responsible capitalism" led to the Great Depression and the recession of 2008. there was no unfettered capitalism to be found.
I admire your track record, Nutsucker. 100% wrong all the time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Historical example.

Every time the government has gotten out of the way, the recovery is quick. Every time they've infered, the recovery was prolonged.

The only reason WW2 succeeded at pulling us out of the Depression it because it forced FDR to relax and eliminate all the regulations he had imposed on industry in order to have a fighting chance against our enemies.

Actually, you have it backwards

In the case of Hoover and Bush it was Government inaction that allowed controllable economic downturns to turn into major economic collapses

It is the standard Republican, let the economy self correct that led to economic disasters

So despite the fact that both Hoover and Bush tried to micromanage the economy, they didn't act? You think FDR ran to the right of Hoover promising to have less government because Hoover didn't act?

That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

So tell me, if it's the exact opposite of what I was saying, why is that when Harding/Coolidge slashed taxes and spending in response to the 1920 Depression they had one of the greatest economic expansions in human history? If your assessment is correct, their inaction should have caused a deeper depression

Forget it. You've passed a level of knowledge that Nutsucker can deal with. In his mind FDR and big government saved this country from predatory unfettered capitalism and the failure of big business. Nothing you can say, no sources you can bring, will ever disabuse him of the notion. It is worse than religion. It is superstition.

 

[Peterf]

I know you keep wanting to pretend the Pope is a hard core leftist who wants governments to provide to the poor. I don't know why it's so difficult for you guys to comprehend giving to the poor without being compelled to by a government.

I also don't know why you think that conservatives, many of whom aren't catholic and some of whom aren't even Christian care about what the Pope says.

The Free Market does decrease poverty for all people. We have some of the wealthiest poor in the history of the world and you complain about the system that created it.

I'm trying but I cannot find anything with which to disagree.

Excelent post Avatar4321.

Yes, social market democracy that regulates capitalism can decrease poverty.

Where did the 'social market' bit come from?

We capitalists insist that markets should be constantly and thoroughly regulated to keep them pristine pure and fair. Harsh measures must be taken at the slightest sign of market rigging. This is the single most important job for the state.

Once in Britain those corrupting the markets had their ears cut off. Some earless denizens of the City of London and Wall St. would be a fine sight.

 

[Peterf]

Sigh, sometimes you guys confound me. You spend a lot of time trashing religion, or Christians in particlar but then extol a religious figure because he purportedly conforms with your political viewpoints. Forgive me for saying so, but that's just sad.

Why? Conservatives extoll religious figures when they do the fire and brimstone bit with regards to homosexuality, abortion, and other things that social conservatives love to hate. Why shouldn't Liberals not feel somewhat gratified when a religious leader preaches social justice, peace, and other things that liberals stand for? Are conservatives "trashing" religion now, and Christianity in particular, now that the Pope has come out in favor of some things that conservatives don't like? Was it sad when conservatives extolled religious leaders because they held similar conservative views?

You are wrong. I am a conservative and I have not extolled a religious leader since my early teens. I detest religion and, therefore, its leaders.

 

[RightDown]

You're not important. Certainly not moreso than anyone else.

When it comes to my private property I beg to differ. that is, after all, why it is called private property. Not that I expect an authoritarian Statist to understand private property.

You've countered none of my arguments and you've shown a healthy disrespect for the US Constitution. The contention that "there is no society" is laughably incorrect.

No, it isn't. Ther eis no collective, only individuals with individual desires and pursuits. Your first argument was that the govt. had no intent when it takes from individuals. Then you tuyrn around and say that it always has intent when stealing.


You mean the contract that no one ever signed and is a complete figment of Statist imagination? Yeah, it's real strong alright. In fantasyland.

That sounds like that far right loon Thatcher...there are only individuals and families...good lord, please deliver us from lunatics.

Ad hominem doesn't strengthen your "case" any. And it is also correct, there are only individuals. I am not you, you are not me, our needs, wants and pursuits are different. Collectivism disregards all individualism.

You clearly confuse a representative form of government with an authoritrian far right Nazi-like government.

Representative government is a myth. No teveryone is represented and in fact, even less than half are through the ballot process. It's a sham.

You're welcome.

Sure thing pal. You type and type and type and you don't communicate anything.

Let's see, we have a US constitution, hundreds of years of caselaw, hundreds of years of governmental operation, a war for independence to get those things, millions of scholarly articles based on those facts and we have you and your "there's no such thing as society", "taxes are theft" and "representative governments are myths."

Can you see why no thinking human would take you or your arguments seriously? I buried your contentions and all I get is a regurgitation of far right nonsense. You wouldn't last a day in a law school class on the constitution.

"And what can anyone tell me about the meaning of the dormant commerce clause and its effect on Society?" "You, in the black tshirt and camoulflage mask..."

"Welll first professor, there is no such thing as 'society', there are only individuals. Second, I did not give my consent to be governed by the constitution or any other authoritarian document! Taxes are theft pure and simple" "And finally, you're a commie bastard!"