Religions > Atheism > Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2005 07:34:15 PM |
| Object: |
Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
www.welcometohell.biz ~ Welcome to Hell was started for two (somewhat
sorta) related reasons. The first reason was our annoyance at the
Christian Right's religious superiority-complex and (even worse) its
co-opting of conservatism, something which had traditionally been the
movement of people who don't like mixing religion and government. The
second reason was our realization of how much of a danger that
religious take-over of the conservative movement presents to
conservatism as a whole; the values that our nation was founded on will
get swallowed up by a theocratic leviathan if nothing is done to stop
it.
With that said, there are three goals (think of them as unDivine
Missions) that Welcome to Hell has set out to accomplish:
1. Stop the Religious Right from turning this country into a statist
theocracy.
2. Stop the neo-liberal Left from turning this country into a
socialist nightmare.
3. Have a good time doing it.
....and we plan on accomplishing all three "goals." With articles on
topics ranging from politics to science to religion, discussion forums
to share ideas and hang out, and a whole bunch of other goodies (to be
announced) in the works - we're prepared to fight the battle on all
fronts, as informed and determined Americans.
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 09:49:32 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) writes:
Not so. Buying groceries in an exchange of value for value. I
voluntarily give value to others in exchange for value, and the
important concept is that both I and the grocer feel we came away better
off for the deal.
And that is how our government works. Whether you call it democracy
or not, it doesn't matter if all other citizens are libertarians, you
will always have to pay taxes for services that you didn't
specifically want or ask for.
You are arguing in bad faith. The initial point was whether or
not it was fair to analogize the government's taking taxes was
equilalent with the grocer taking money for groceries. It is not,
because the government has the authority to take taxes by force if
necessary; the groces does not.
As for whether or not I will be taxed for actions the goverment
commits that I do not wish-- of course I will be. My point is that by
reducing the authority and reach of government, the number of things to
which any given citizen may object his tax use is significantly
reduced. Any increase automatically brings with it increased
contention, and an increased possibilty for abuse of authority.
Again, the point I made stands: taxing people to provide others
with even "necessities" taxes some people strictly for the benefit of
others. That is a matter of principle. If you cannot stand on
principle, you have no right to stand on the backs of others.
Surprisingly enough, there weren't that many starving families
before welfare. I challenge anyone to show me how the rates of
death-by-starvation in this country dropped when welfare was
introduced.
No, people don't starve. They turn to crime instead - if they can.
Nobody sits around and submissively starves to death unless there is
no food anywhere they can get to or are threatened by others into it.
And you accuse me of confusing correlation with causation! You
can't even SHOW the correlation, much less make an argument for it.
Okay, this is alt.atheism. I'm going to play atheist. I'm
skeptical of your claim: show me that the per-capita production and
distribution of food over the continuing series of ten-year periods
starting in 1850, show me the proportionate distribution, and show me
the correlation between disproportionate distribution and criminal
activity.
Until you can do that, I have no reason to believe you. None at
all. You're just creating hot air. Your argumentation is as valid
(although less effective... I'm not sure if that's a good thing) than
that of creationists' and the Bush Administration's.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
14 Apr 2005 08:03:02 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 19:49:32 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) writes:
Not so. Buying groceries in an exchange of value for value. I
voluntarily give value to others in exchange for value, and the
important concept is that both I and the grocer feel we came away better
off for the deal.
And that is how our government works. Whether you call it democracy
or not, it doesn't matter if all other citizens are libertarians, you
will always have to pay taxes for services that you didn't
specifically want or ask for.
You are arguing in bad faith. The initial point was whether or
not it was fair to analogize the government's taking taxes was
equilalent with the grocer taking money for groceries. It is not,
because the government has the authority to take taxes by force if
necessary; the groces does not.
No, the government cannot take taxes from you if you don't live here.
If you live here, and are a citizen, you agree to the contract. If
you don't like it, you have the option of moving away.
As for whether or not I will be taxed for actions the goverment
commits that I do not wish-- of course I will be. My point is that by
reducing the authority and reach of government, the number of things to
which any given citizen may object his tax use is significantly
reduced. Any increase automatically brings with it increased
contention, and an increased possibilty for abuse of authority.
But you cannot complain about having to pay for things you
specifically didn't authorize. And you did.
Again, the point I made stands: taxing people to provide others
with even "necessities" taxes some people strictly for the benefit of
others. That is a matter of principle. If you cannot stand on
principle, you have no right to stand on the backs of others.
I'm sorry - that did not follow - or make sense.
Surprisingly enough, there weren't that many starving families
before welfare. I challenge anyone to show me how the rates of
death-by-starvation in this country dropped when welfare was
introduced.
No, people don't starve. They turn to crime instead - if they can.
Nobody sits around and submissively starves to death unless there is
no food anywhere they can get to or are threatened by others into it.
And you accuse me of confusing correlation with causation! You
can't even SHOW the correlation, much less make an argument for it.
Oh give me a break. You are reaching so far, your post broke.
Okay, this is alt.atheism. I'm going to play atheist. I'm
skeptical of your claim: show me that the per-capita production and
distribution of food over the continuing series of ten-year periods
starting in 1850, show me the proportionate distribution, and show me
the correlation between disproportionate distribution and criminal
activity.
How can I? They put in emergency soup lines and other help.
Until you can do that, I have no reason to believe you. None at
all. You're just creating hot air. Your argumentation is as valid
(although less effective... I'm not sure if that's a good thing) than
that of creationists' and the Bush Administration's.
Try common sense Elf. If you and your wife could not find work and
you aren't going to use welfare and there is no charity available -
what are you going to do - watch your kid starve?
And how as a government policymaker, are you going to deal with that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 02:55:06 PM |
|
|
Kate, if you have nothing better to say than "No it isn't!!!" or "Yes
it is!!!" and "If you don't like it, move to a different country!!!"
then you are not debating, you're being a child.
You've offered no real arguments to Gil other than what I stated above.
Given what you support, that's to be expected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 03:41:04 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 12:55:06 -0700, wrote:
Kate, if you have nothing better to say than "No it isn't!!!" or "Yes
it is!!!" and "If you don't like it, move to a different country!!!"
then you are not debating, you're being a child.
Oh crap. He doesn't like what was voted in and blames the government
type - democracy on the liberals. That's how it works - it's not the
liberals laws that made that part so.
You've offered no real arguments to Gil other than what I stated above.
Given what you support, that's to be expected.
Then you had problems understanding what I wrote.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 10:12:43 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) writes:
People who aren't starving are safer to be around. People are social
(most of us, apparently libertarians are not so much) and do not like
to watch their neighbors starve. That you pretend this is all to
redistribute income, is a lie to yourself.
It *is* income redistribution; don't lie to yourself about
that. Any system that uses the efforts of one man to benefit another
uses one man and benefits another; everything else is just pretty
words.
Note your first sentence: it's sheer blackmail. "Feed us or
we'll kill you." It's that kind of rhetoric that drives economic
libertarians up the wall.
Liberals advocate a social welfare system that provides the bare
minimum and no more.
Except that there's mission creep in any expectation of "bare
minimum." What does that mean? A cot and gruel? Or a flat and
groceries? As the middle class becomes comfortable, the minimum become
a threat merely from the envy of wanting more. I prefer the stark
reality that given a choice between starving and working, most people
would prefer to work.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 10:57:01 AM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) writes:
People who aren't starving are safer to be around. People are
social
(most of us, apparently libertarians are not so much) and do not
like
to watch their neighbors starve. That you pretend this is all to
redistribute income, is a lie to yourself.
It *is* income redistribution; don't lie to yourself about
that. Any system that uses the efforts of one man to benefit another
uses one man and benefits another; everything else is just pretty
words.
Note your first sentence: it's sheer blackmail. "Feed us or
we'll kill you." It's that kind of rhetoric that drives economic
libertarians up the wall.
Liberals advocate a social welfare system that provides the bare
minimum and no more.
Except that there's mission creep in any expectation of "bare
minimum." What does that mean? A cot and gruel? Or a flat and
groceries? As the middle class becomes comfortable, the minimum
become
a threat merely from the envy of wanting more. I prefer the stark
reality that given a choice between starving and working, most people
would prefer to work.
Elf
I'm not sure I understand. Which would you do away with:
Road maintenance, public schools, fire departments, the military, the
FAA, the FDA, or welfare?
If you say welfare only, I note that folks on welfare have been reduced
about 50% since Clinton started the process of welfare reform. Do you
think that all people can support themselves? How about the diabetic
grandmother who lost a leg; the "kids" are dead and the grandkids in
grade school? Shall we let the kids fend for themselves, and if so,
will you be righteously indignant when they mug you 20 years from now?
What do they owe *you? If you say sure, we'll take of them by helping
grandma until they're 18, then we agree.
We don't have socialized medicine. Our medicine is every bit as good as
Sweden's, on the average, only it cost about one third more. But you
should be happy, because someone, somewhere, is making a profit at our
expense. And he's not a doctor.
Are we truly differing in principle, or are we just going to argue
about a few special instances (and are you so sure you know how I feel
about these things)?
Kermit
Liberal for half a century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gil" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 02:28:40 PM |
|
|
"I'm not sure I understand. Which would you do away with:
Road maintenance, public schools, fire departments, the military, the
FAA, the FDA, or welfare? "
Which of those are federally funded, and which are provided by the
local government?
That is the key to understanding the American tradition of laissez
faire and libertarianism. We advocate government that is as localized
as possible - where each individual retains as many legal and natural
rights as possible within a society.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to Hell - A Site for Politically Conservative Atheists |
12 Apr 2005 02:19:03 PM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 08:12:43 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) writes:
People who aren't starving are safer to be around. People are social
(most of us, apparently libertarians are not so much) and do not like
to watch their neighbors starve. That you pretend this is all to
redistribute income, is a lie to yourself.
It *is* income redistribution; don't lie to yourself about
that. Any system that uses the efforts of one man to benefit another
uses one man and benefits another; everything else is just pretty
words.
If there's a benefit in it for you, then it isn't. Sorry - reality
doesn't match your world view.
Note your first sentence: it's sheer blackmail. "Feed us or
we'll kill you." It's that kind of rhetoric that drives economic
libertarians up the wall.
It's not rhetoric. People who are starving will rob you or kill you
to feed themselves. I don't really care if you don't like it - there
it is.
Liberals advocate a social welfare system that provides the bare
minimum and no more.
Except that there's mission creep in any expectation of "bare
minimum." What does that mean? A cot and gruel? Or a flat and
groceries? As the middle class becomes comfortable, the minimum become
a threat merely from the envy of wanting more. I prefer the stark
reality that given a choice between starving and working, most people
would prefer to work.
Bare minimum is what's the cheapest. A cot and gruel and moving
people around is more expensive than a stipend and a lot less humane -
which we all discovered with the workhouses of yore. If you don't
like the process, get off your ***** and work on it so it work sbetter
instead of just whining about having them at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
