Quote:
Originally Posted by nerv14
The end always justifys the means
|
Not so.
Quote:
|
but the problem is that alot of times people do horrible things like the war in Iraq, and claim that they are giving the Iraqi's better lives but in reallity they are not.
|
And likewise, politicians claim they are fighting a War on Poverty, steal trillions of dollars from some people, give it to others, and we still have poverty. And every year they keep spending more and taxing more, and never seem to be able to fix the problem they claim they can fix...
I submit to you that if government did solve the problem, there would be no need for politicians in government.
Quote:
|
The problem is that you can't always tell the result of something before it is done and alot of times it is a mistake.
|
I agree. So why force people to do things, at gunpoint at necessary, if you can't verify the results? And why can't we apply the scientific method, and experimentation, to all government policies? Isn't that the only rational way to discover scientific truth?
Quote:
|
By definition if a sacrifice is worth its reward than the sacrifice was a good choose.
|
Depends on how you define "sacrifice" and "reward."
Quote:
|
The theft of wealth is sometimes justified if the money is used to make the society much better on a whole,
|
Quote:
|
On its most basic level taxation is needed to fund police and military, which most people would agree is needed. The free market has the advantage of when people think about themselves it helps the society as a whole but mandatory taxation is needed for the police because people would not offer enough money on their own free will to help themselves to the fullest extent.
|
Can you scientifically prove that? Sounds like it's just an opinion...
Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxation and ran the government solely from trade tariffs. We still had police and military, and the country functioned just fine. I say the only way to prove this is to do an experiment, and let's just see what can or cannot be done without taxation. We can start small, with towns, then, if it's successful, we move to a city, a state, a larger state, then a region, and finally, the whole country. It can take place over several years for a smooth transition.
Quote:
|
You make it seem like that the only reason welfare exists is give political power to the politicians who weild them. That is incredibly sinical
|
It's spelled "cynical" - and politicians do crave power and prestige. I find it hard to believe anyone would argue that. Again, if politicians/government solve problems, then what need is there for politicians/government? They don't want to put themselves out of work. They have an incentive to expand their authority, and claiming that they're helping the poor is a great vehicle for that, as it plays on people's sympathy.