What do you like and/or dislike about Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum?

[John_James]

You need to use the quote tags. If you want to quote something, you need to copy the quote tags and put them around it…

“This is commonsenselako, this is my quote” ----> replace the first quotation mark with [ quote user=“commonsenselako” ] and at the end, [ /quote ] without the spaces before and after the brackets.

@commonsenselako

Taken to this extreme we have no basis on which to support a candidate.

Hey, I was using available evidence to support my claim. You were the one who demanded “irrefutable”.

The was in the context of people not agreeing to the removal of social programs and that I feel that the negative income tax would be the best compromise. I was agreeing that the negative income tax is wrong, but that the people want social programs.

This still doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “looking at the road ahead”.

If you have a way to remove social programs and prevent them from ever returning, I will gladly listen. I’m not stuck in my ways, but I haven’t heard a better solution.

Obviously there’s no automatic panacea, but I can tell you the way to get rid of something is usually not by arguing in favor of it.

I’m not asking a moral question. We can say the State is illegitimate, but lets say it is not going anywhere for a while. So therefore can the State attack a foriegn country to prevent them from attacking us, if there is no other way of prevention. Is this only if they are going to attack us, or lets say there is the human equivalent to the talking puppies, as far as helplessnes, what then? Is this only if the threat is imminent, or whenever a treat arises? and how far can we take bridge destruction equivalents in real life?

I believe I addressed this. You even quoted it. It would seem as though you read the first sentence of the response and then proceded as if “the state shouldn’t be doing anything” is all I said. What say you to the rest of my response?

@commonsenselako

I’m not because in welfare people lose their benefits when they get a job. In a negative income tax they still have the safety net.

Forgive me for being redundant, but…Right. Just like I said. So how in the world is guaranteeing them welfare a motivator to get a job? You just said yourself it wasn’t (contradicting yourself from your last post).

(Not to mention, this is virtually no different from the scheme you are denouncing in favor of this one. Under a negative income tax, you are guaranteed a certain amount of money no matter what you do. As in, you don’t have a lift a finger and money is paid to you. If you earn any money for yourself, some of that free money is taken away. As in…insofar as you earn money, your free payment from government is taken away…insofar as you don’t bother to do anything, more money is paid to you.)

Again, I don’t see how you can argue this is different, at least on a fundamental level. Because, on that level, it isn’t. It is still free money and all your basic needs met if you sit around and do nothing (as in, you don’t have to do a damn thing ever in your life) and as you do do something productive and get paid for it, your free money is taken away.

This is the opposite of the motivating you are claiming would take place. The incentive is to not do anything.

I find it interesting (though, not very surprising) that you would continue to focus on this meaningless “oh but in welfare they lose everything, but in this tax scheme they still get free stuff even after they get a job”, while ignoring the fundamental point I made. Scheme it and dress it up any way you want. The bottom line is you are guaranteeing them all their basic needs, (as in guaranteeing them they do not have to do anything, ever in their lives) and you somehow think that motivates the exact opposite (i.e. to do something).

Please do some more reading:

Fallacies of the Negative Income Tax

Friedman’s Mistake

The Conquest of Poverty (p. 116)

Negative Income Tax Is Back

Because I feel we would have to offer a replacement, or the majority wouldn’t go along with it.

Then why not propose something other than more of the same? Why not propose something actually in the right direction? Hell, why not persuade them of the truth? You’re wasting much effort basically pushing people laterally…not changing fundamental belief at all.

You’re a Ron Paul guy, right? Why in the world do you think Paul never talks about instituting more government programs like you do? He talks about the only way you can actually improve anything is by people changing their ideas of what the role of government ought to be. He doesn’t go around trying to convince people “hey this welfare scheme is better than that welfare scheme.”

Again, please see these:

Ron Paul is a Voluntarist

Where do Ron Paul’s ideas come from?

Im not saying more, I’m saying less. The negative income tax would be a replacement.

You’re arguing to replace one socialist program with another one. Please see the links on negative income tax above.

@commonsenselako

I didn’t say the others are to be freely trampled on, I said violence can be trampled on.

Right, but you specifically ignored any other act. You basically argued that whatever the majority wants, should be done, because right or wrong, “it’s what the people want”. So I took your statement to its logical conclusion on the topic of slavery, and you responded with essentially “well, uh, domestic violence is different.”

So I asked you about everything else…including non-domestic violence, since you made it a point to specify. Now you’re telling me you’re not suggesting that other rights should be able to be infringed just because it’s what the majority wants. So now my question becomes…what was the point of saying “wrong yes, but it’s what the majority wants”? Do you believe majority should rule or not?

Personally I believe that the government could take people within their borders to trial, so the government has no power in non-domestic violence. In my prior question I am looking for exceptions to the rule.

You’re going to have to explain this.

If your giving me the alternate that no one becomes a slave, I would take that of course, but if that option is not available I would save as many as I could.

It’s not about saving anyone. It’s about what you think is just. Your statements lead one to believe you are of the persuasion that “majority rules” is the best recipe for order in the world. I’m merely trying to get you to see the flaw in that line of thinking. But evidently you either believe far too strongly in that tyrannical idea, or you are far too flexible on principles.