Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

False.

 

Oh, really? Well, how much worse, then, is it for the state to do what it ACTUALLY does: force the poor man to give the $10 to the rich one because YOU think it is the right thing to do? Hmmmmm?

 

What was the reason given, then?

I'm waiting.

 

Well, it's OK it you do not take exception to someone using the state to force their morality on others.
Are you one of those people?

 

In what way?

Again, that's just baldly false. It is quite a commonplace premise in modern mainstream neoclassical economics.

 

I suggest read my read my post.
Your entire response to the reasons given equates to a pre-pubescent "nuh-uh".

 

Yes, as long as their morality is based on respect for the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. If their morality is a morality based on greed, predation, and forcible abrogation of others' rights without just compensation, as yours appears to be, then no.

 

I did read your post. I discerned nothing in it that could be considered a reason for your claim, just a bald claim -- which you have now admitted was not supported by any reason.

 

In other words, you agree with using the state to impose moralities your approve of, but not those you do not approve of.
That is, it's OK when you to it to me, but not when I do it to you.
Hypocritical much?

 

Ah. You do not have the capacity to understand what I said.
Well, I can't help you there.

 

Citation?

 

It would be a very odd religion that would require money for its free exercise....

Individuals exercise religion, not churches. Churches are corporations, and it is therefore physically impossible for a church to either hold a religious belief or exzercise one.

Like your wages? A tax on a church as a corporation like any other in no way taxes anyone's right to exercise their religion.

 

Thank you for agreeing that you can identify, and in fact offered, no actual reasons for your claim, just the bald claim.

And just FYI, I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not. So claiming I do not have the capacity to understand what you wrote is not going to work, mkay?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

 

You choose to not understand the point.
Churches collect donations for innumerable uses all related to the free exercise of their beliefs; to tax those donations restricts the free exercise in that it artificially reduces the funds available for same. In that, the right to the free exercise is abridged.

Churches are individuals joined by a common belief; their right to free exercise of those beliefs may not be abridged.
Forcing those individuals to pay a tax in order to exercise those beliefs is an abridgement of that right to free exercise in that it lays a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same.

Like all rights to (x)

As we see, nothing in your post can be considered a sound reason for your claim, and thus, you offer only a bald claim

 

You know your statement is false.

Anyone who feels the need to make this claim, didn't.

 

Yes, because that is sorta what the state is for: "...To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Remember?

Correct, because the situation is not symmetrical: I advocate a state that will secure and reconcile your rights along with everyone else's, while you prefer one that will violate mine and presumably everyone else's without just compensation.

No, because I do not accept that all moralities are equal, or that the state forcibly imposing a morality that abrogates people's rights is symmetrical with the state forcibly imposing a morality that secures people's rights. A state that takes from me to give to you is not morally equivalent to a state that takes from you what you have stolen from me and returns it to me. See how that works?

 

"Secure". Not "provide the means to exercise".
So much for that 170.
And further, where does it say "...to impose upon others my morality..."
I'll wait.

As you advocate a state that will force me to give $10 to someone who does not have it - because you think it is the right thing to do - you do NOT advocate for a state that secures my rights and the rights of others.
Indeed, it is advocacy for a state that will violate my rights, and presumably everyone else's, without just compensation, based on nothing but your version of morality.

And you think yours is better.
So much better, the state must force everyone to abide by it.
Right?

 

Hmm... Not there. Maybe you should read the post in question, once more.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-never-worked.575074/page-10#post-1071849716

 

Nothing to do with me. Marginal revenue product of labour is an objective measure. Its as if you dont know what you're talking about

 

It means conservatism is dull as dish waster. Its not even a coherent political economy. Its merely a weighting system.

 

<yawn> Of course it is, in the very first sentence:
"Pareto optimality is a situation where no individual or preference criterion can be better off without making at least one individual or preference criterion worse off"

That means losses are accounted more important than gains.

<yawn> I read it thanks. But unlike you, I understood it.

 

<yawn> Where did I say anything about providing the means?

You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

And the 170 is quite real, I assure you.

Right where "my morality" (unlike, say, yours) is based on respect for the rights in question.

That is an outright fabrication on your part.

Another fabrication.

Another fabrication.

Which rights would those be?

I have good reason to think so.

As securing and reconciling the equal individual rights of all is the state's proper function, yes.

 

No, you know it is true.

That is obviously an absurd non sequitur. I didn't feel any "need" to say it, I just figured it might be a quick way to make you think twice before offering any more false and cretinous claims about my English comprehension ability. It didn't, so I guess that fact, too, was offered in vain.

 

If not to provide him the means to exercise their rights, why then take the $10 form me and give to to someone that doesn't have it?

That is an outright fabrication on your part.

The fact you advocate for a state that will force me to give $10 to someone who does not have it says otherwise.

You don't understand the use of (x)?
How can that be?

Unless you can demonstrate the soundness of your version of reality, no rational, reasoned person will be swayed by your "its the right thing to do argument".
Please begin.

"Secure". Not "provide the means to exercise".
"Reconcile"? Where did this fabrication come from?