NationStates Jolt Archive

How liberals think: Hmmm, how to make the world a better place?

Also, how conservatives think: Hmmm, how to make the world a better place?

Oh really? On virtue of what action? My mere existence?

I call bullshit. I didn't sign up for this, and I want out of this humanitarian torture chamber at once!

Ahh well that is simple.

You pack your bags and find some remote island. Many of them exist.

But you would go crazy for lack of net access.

Fact 2: Liberals will say anything, anytime if they believe it will further their ends.

One of the latest liberal lies here on the NS forum is that Clinton was an economic conservative. When was he EVER economically conservative? Certainly not when Newt Gingrich forced him to accept the Contract With America’s balanced budget. Sorry libs, that was our plan. Was it when Clinton signed NAFTA, thereby allowing American manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico? Was it when he granted permanent Most Favored Trading Nation status to China? Therefore ensuring BILLIONS of dollars in trade deficits and costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs and aiding even more American jobs to be outsourced? Was it when he saddled American companies with millions in increased taxation? Or was it when he increased the cost of business by his administrations unnecessary over regulation of businesses? The facts will shatter liberal lies every time.

I have some information for you here about the NAFTA and China agreements.
This information in independent and covers both good and bad things that Clinton did. Unlike you I dont believe the present state of the economy is to blame on Clinton. Balancing the budget actually used to be a republican issue and now it is the democrats that seem to be taking up the cause. The link under the one about NAFTA is about the economy during the Clinton administration. The source about the ecomony to this website is again the United States government. There is also a link at the bottom talking about how Bush's policies on outsourcing jobs has affected the economy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760626.html
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

That is the price you have to pay for living in any country, corrupt or not. It's a give and take part of modern and unmodern civilization.
Price? Price for what? That doesn't answer my question at all. It's simply a restatement of the original premise. You're saying that just because I live in $COUNTRY that means I'm morally obligated to abide by the status quo?

I'm sorry, I have just a little bit too much self-respect for that.

Price? Price for what? That doesn't answer my question at all. It's simply a restatement of the original premise. You're saying that just because I live in $COUNTRY that means I'm morally obligated to abide by the status quo?

I'm sorry, I have just a little bit too much self-respect for that.

Ahh the prinicple of I, me, and Mine.

So do you pick and choose what laws to obey?

So if my self interest is greatly enhanced by limiting yours what does your philosophy say to that? Mind you that your are not physically harmed of course....

A current popular tread among liberals is to call themselves Libertarians. They fail to realize we know they’ve hijacked the Libertarian movement as of 5 years ago. New wrapper, same liberalism.
I call busllshit. Who are these "new libertarians"? Can you be more specific... I'm sure there's plenty of names, right?

I think you're not familiar with Classical Liberalism or libertarianism at all.
The traditional left-right-liberal-conservative axis does not serve us accurately. We may share a lot in common with liberals concerning social issues, but we reach these conclusions via different means and philisophical backgrounds.

Modern liberalism is a codeword for Democratic Socialism.
Libertarianism is about free minds and free markets. Individualism at its finest.

What liberal is against minimum wages, taxation, socialized medicine and welfare?
In fact, I'm far more often accused of being a conservative! And I hate that innacurate, uneducated observation just as much.

You need to do a bit more research before you make such hyperbolic, sensationalist statements.

Why did someone have to necromance (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm) this thread?

I was making fun of his argument. He says some people who are against the war hate Jews, so everyone who's against the war hates Jews. That's a really dumb argument. Above is why, through my analogy.

So, according to him, I hate myself? For tht matter, the vast majority of the Jewish populace of this country hates itself. Every Jew I know, myself included, is disgusted with the war.

So, according to him, I hate myself? For tht matter, the vast majority of the Jewish populace of this country hates itself. Every Jew I know, myself included, is disgusted with the war.
Basically, you're right about his argument.

However, your last assertion is pure bullshit. Richard Perle is Jewish. Paul Wolfowitz is Jewish. I'm Jewish, and I think the war is justifiable on purely humanitarian grounds, but the occupation has been run poorly.

Ahh the prinicple of I, me, and Mine.
You bet 'cher ass.

So do you pick and choose what laws to obey?
Yes.

So if my self interest is greatly enhanced by limiting yours what does your philosophy say to that? Mind you that your are not physically harmed of course....
It says "Back off, bitch, or I'll tear you a new cornhole."

To get any more specific than that would require an expicit restatement of just what exactly it is you mean by 'limiting' my self interest. Moral fact cannot be addressed properly without all the relevant information. A lot of time, people's self interest is 'imited' as you put it, by, say; a competing business enterprise or a government regulation. In more than a few cases, either one may be justified, and given that you didn't include the all-important concept of 'reason' or 'rational' self interest, it's still too hard to say.

Speaking of the original post, rereading it I agree with most of it.

Most of it would stay true if you replaced the word "liberal" with "conservative" as well (and replaced the relevant names).

Actually, not quite true.

The best fit would be if you replaced "liberal" with "politician."

Price? Price for what? That doesn't answer my question at all. It's simply a restatement of the original premise. You're saying that just because I live in $COUNTRY that means I'm morally obligated to abide by the status quo?

I'm sorry, I have just a little bit too much self-respect for that.

No, I'm saying you're legally obligated. And the next time you insult my ability to reason, read the last sentance. It's a give and take of any modern civilization.

Social Security though is not that. Social security is to make sure that people who don't see abstractly will at least be able to have food when their old. And, you talk about how it's neccesary to have two savings plans, making people falsely rely on it, but for people like my dad who will collect pension on multiple things, it is enough. So it's not only something that saves people's lives, but it also can turn into an entire savings.

Oh, and by the way Deleuze, I necromanced the thread. Sorry.

No, I'm saying you're legally obligated.
That's not good enough for me. I'm also legally obligated to not smoke pot and stay away from beer before I'm 21. I'm 20, and I do both. Does that make it wrong for me to do it on virtue of the law alone? No. Why should we start applying the same standards to welfare and SS and everythging else under the sun?

Social Security though is not that. Social security is to make sure that people who don't see abstractly will at least be able to have food when their old. And, you talk about how it's neccesary to have two savings plans, making people falsely rely on it, but for people like my dad who will collect pension on multiple things, it is enough. So it's not only something that saves people's lives, but it also can turn into an entire savings.

Oh, and by the way Deleuze, I necromanced the thread. Sorry.
I've already made some arguments about Social Security in this thread that I don't care to repeat: suffice to say the entire concept behind Social Security has some major philosophical holes in it.

If you have the patience, you can wade through the earlier pages where I discuss that and various other issues with Deleuze at length.

Social security is certainly useful for lower-income bracket earners, but the view will change with leanings and higher-income. It seems obvious that people who earn a lot will feel less involved with social security, and those who earn very little will be concerned greatly with social security.

Perhaps if people set aside, by themselves, the money specified for social security, it could be bypassed. But that is just armchair Napoleon speculation. ;)

There are a disturbing number of stupid people on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide. Congratulations, you are officially part of the mentally retarded wing of the Republican Party. I hope you and your counterparts on the left scream at each other until you are hoarse and give everyone else some peace and quiet.

Perhaps if people set aside, by themselves, the money specified for social security, it could be bypassed. But that is just armchair Napoleon speculation. ;)
Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at with all of this; the idea to me is that one should save money themselves as opposed to being nannied by their government from cradle [child support, property taxes for schools, student aid] to grave [social security, death tax, medicare].

Once we stop having to pay for the people that already have retirement money [bear in mind much more of us would if we didn't have to pay this tax], and once we stop having to pay for the people that are fucked because of their own mistakes or shortcomings, we might find out that the actual amount of people to whom this is a useful program is significantly smaller. Frankly, I have my doubts as to whether or not it will even be around when I'm 65: or, in my case, whether my lifestyle will allwo me to live to 65. Actually, now that I think of it, the qualification age is likely to be in the 70's by the time I'm eligible for it.

That's not good enough for me. I'm also legally obligated to not smoke pot and stay away from beer before I'm 21. I'm 20, and I do both. Does that make it wrong for me to do it on virtue of the law alone? No. Why should we start applying the same standards to welfare and SS and everythging else under the sun?

Actually, I'm conservative on social issues, so....

I've already made some arguments about Social Security in this thread that I don't care to repeat: suffice to say the entire concept behind Social Security has some major philosophical holes in it.

If you have the patience, you can wade through the earlier pages where I discuss that and various other issues with Deleuze at length.

Actually, I already have... And I acknowledge your position, but, as my brother says, majority rules: you have to live with that.

suffice to say the entire concept behind Social Security has some major philosophical holes in it.
You don't get it do you? Nobody who needs SS gives a shit whether it is philosophically justified. Why do you always approach practical problems from an exclusively theoretical point of view? It's all about the results. In my opinion, ends justify means, not vice versa.

You don't get it do you? Nobody who needs SS gives a shit whether it is philosophically justified. Why do you always approach practical problems from an exclusively theoretical point of view? It's all about the results. In my opinion, ends justify means, not vice versa.
Except that theory dictates practice. That is, if you destroy the philosophical basis of Social Security (societal rule utilitarianism), then the effects actually become negative, because we're no longer operated in the consequentialist framework you seem to assume is true. (I agree with you on the larger point, but not on this one).

Actually, I'm conservative on social issues, so....
When you're speaking to an Objectivist like Melkor, that's probably not scoring you any points.

But let's give you a more pertinent example: Slavery was at one point legal. Does that mean that we should have to support and obey the Fugitive Slave Act?

"Just 'cause it's law don't make it right."

Actually, I already have... And I acknowledge your position, but, as my brother says, majority rules: you have to live with that.
So was the Holocaust right because the majority voted for the Nazis?

When you're speaking to an Objectivist like Melkor, that's probably not scoring you any points.

I was merely telling you that I don't support alchohaul(sp?), drugs, or anything that some liberals deam OK.

But let's give you a more pertinent example: Slavery was at one point legal. Does that mean that we should have to support and obey the Fugitive Slave Act?

"Just 'cause it's law don't make it right."

So was the Holocaust right because the majority voted for the Nazis?

Thank you very much. That's just the sort of kick I needed to remember this is Melkor and he hates SS just as much as he hates slavery. But, I call bullshit. SS is not comeparable to slaves[top] or the holocaust[above].

I was merely telling you that I don't support alchohaul(sp?), drugs, or anything that some liberals deam OK.
Sure, but that's irrelevant to the larger philosophical point at stake here.

And the spelling is 'alcohol.'

Thank you very much. That's just the sort of kick I needed to remember this is Melkor and he hates SS just as much as he hates slavery. But, I call bullshit. SS is not comeparable to slaves[top] or the holocaust[above].
In my mind, yes. But you said in one of your posts (I quoted it last time) "I'll follow any law that's passed." I'm disputing the validity of that statement. So I'll say it again: would support genocide just because your country was committing it? No, right? So then don't go for the "It's law, so it's right" argument.

No, I said majority rules. Then he said something to the extent of "so I'm morally obligated". Then I said, no, you're legally obligated. It's not as faulty a logic as slavery or prohibition. Also, it produces good results. And I think I was refering more to taxes in general.

You don't get it do you? Nobody who needs SS gives a shit whether it is philosophically justified. Why do you always approach practical problems from an exclusively theoretical point of view? It's all about the results. In my opinion, ends justify means, not vice versa.
First off, I'm not adressing it merely from a theoretical standpoint; as it is also my belief that Social Security is being run into the ground. Like Communism, Nazism and [God willing] the Welfare State, Social Security failed in practice just as it was doomed to by the inadequacies of its theory.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, Social Security appeals to the concept of trade--you make what [appears to be a] sacrifice now, and then you get sweet paychecks for doing nothing when you hit the qualification age. However, trade presupposes choice. Remove choice from the equation and it is no longer a trade; it is a mandatory sacrifice.

If your broker reccommended a loan to you with similar returns as you might see from a SS account, he'd be fired. Yet, many of us seem to want the Government to do the exact same shit. Bottom line: if the money is for me when I get old, someone needs to ask me if I want to have it saved. If it's for someone else, then please drop this pretense of telling me that SS is for my own good. In either case I'm not satisfied with the program, and frankly I'd like my money back. Cash would be nice.

And lastly, the ends do not justify the means. The 'Ends,' if properly formulated, should require no sacrifice to reach.

Thank you very much. That's just the sort of kick I needed to remember this is Melkor and he hates SS just as much as he hates slavery. But, I call bullshit. SS is not comeparable to slaves[top] or the holocaust[above].
SS isn't comparable to slavery? Try this on for size:

If I'm working, I'm earning money, right? That's the way things work: I provide a service and I get monetary remuneration. That's the way it should be: it's a fair trade, both parties get what they want, right?

Not with taxes. Or, to be more specific, Social Security taxes. Let's say they take $30 out of a $300 paycheck--that's 10% of my money, and thus, is 10% of my time. What that tax is telling me, in effect, was that one out of every ten minutes I spend at work was--get this!--slavery! Slavery is traditionally defined as providing a service without receiving payment--forced labor for little or no profit. Given that this is a slightly more enlightened age we live in, I can only thank my stars that I'm not actually a slave--only 10% of the time.

If you want to argue that other people receive a benefit from this "slavery" then fine--but remember that Southern farmers saw a benefit too: that doesn't justify anything. And if you want to say it's not slavery because it's a fair trade, just reread my previous post.

Actually, I already have... And I acknowledge your position, but, as my brother says, majority rules: you have to live with that.

The second instance.

Then there’s a much more sinister code word, NeoCon. While your run of the mill leftist may not yet realize it, the power brokers of the left use this word because they can’t use the word they really mean, JEW. Think about it, who’s names do you here when top liberals speak of Neocons? You hear names like Wolfowitz, Pletka, Kristol, Perle, and Luti. Not exactly gentile members of the Bush movement, are they? Muslims are much less timid when they use it. They will freely speak of how the Zionist neocons are controlling America for Israel. Are these people the company you really want to keep liberals?

You've got to be kidding. You start off subtle, but you get to this paragraph, and your racist BS becomes loud and clear.

No opinon that includes racism is valid. Begone.

The second instance.
I certainly hope that isn't supposed to be taken as a legitmate response to my arguments.

SS isn't comparable to slavery? Try this on for size:

If I'm working, I'm earning money, right? That's the way things work: I provide a service and I get monetary remuneration. That's the way it should be: it's a fair trade, both parties get what they want, right?

Not with taxes. Or, to be more specific, Social Security taxes. Let's say they take $30 out of a $300 paycheck--that's 10% of my money, and thus, is 10% of my time. What that tax is telling me, in effect, was that one out of every ten minutes I spend at work was--get this!--slavery! Slavery is traditionally defined as providing a service without receiving payment--forced labor for little or no profit. Given that this is a slightly more enlightened age we live in, I can only thank my stars that I'm not actually a slave--only 10% of the time.

If you want to argue that other people receive a benefit from this "slavery" then fine--but remember that Southern farmers saw a benefit too: that doesn't justify anything. And if you want to say it's not slavery because it's a fair trade, just reread my previous post.

OK, I'll do this in order of the arguement.

A. Actually, it's not always a fair trade. According to your philosophy, I could give you a penny. Because, it's just money in return. But, that's cemantics.

B. 300$? You only work 60 hours a month? Well, if you did have $300, they would take $18.60 out, or just shut down the buisness you work at. Or you could sue the buisness. Minimum wage laws. Anyway, they take 6.2%. Even lower for the [most] wealthy 1%. 0.1%.

C. Oh common. You left a hole!!!! BAD BOY(or girl)! You pretend that you never get any return. You see, you can't go up to your boss and say "let me have my money now that I'm working so hard for" only after three hours. So, your getting a delayed recovering of money spent. So, you collect on social security, relatively the same way you collect in paychecks.

D. And, slavery is not neccesarily for little profit, and it's not neccesarily for no profit, and it's not neccesaril for a substancial profit, it's simply forced labor.

Please, argue.

I certainly hope that isn't supposed to be taken as a legitmate response to my arguments.

Twas not talking to you. There is a response to your precious areguement though.

Please, argue.
Don't mind if I do.

OK, I'll do this in order of the arguement.

A. Actually, it's not always a fair trade. According to your philosophy, I could give you a penny. Because, it's just money in return. But, that's cemantics.
One: It's semantics: if you're going to use a word that denotes the arrangement or composition of words you lose enormous amounts of credibility if you can't spell it.

Two: You're apparently trying to tell me that an unfair trade is essentially 'fair.' You're making the assumption that my philosophy places arbitrary values on completely different amounts of cash. Do your homework before you say things like "According to your philosophy" next time, please. We don't pretend to say that an arbitrary amount of money is acceptable remuneration for a day's work.

B. 300$? You only work 60 hours a month? Well, if you did have $300, they would take $18.60 out, or just shut down the buisness you work at. Or you could sue the buisness. Minimum wage laws. Anyway, they take 6.2%. Even lower for the [most] wealthy 1%. 0.1%.
Way to completely miss the point. People who do this make me see red: they ignore the actual argument and latch on to the numbers as if they were the lynchpin of my attack. I'll put it in laymen's terms without using the numbers this time:

If I work, and the government takes out a certain percentage of money that it demanded my employer pay me in the first place, the government is subsidizing my labor for a certain percentage of time proportional to the percentage of that tax. Whether it's 10% or not is irrelevant, nor does it matter how often I work or what the wages are, really.

C. Oh common. You left a hole!!!! BAD BOY(or girl)! You pretend that you never get any return. You see, you can't go up to your boss and say "let me have my money now that I'm working so hard for" only after three hours. So, your getting a delayed recovering of money spent. So, you collect on social security, relatively the same way you collect in paychecks.
Except that there's a small difference in the amount of time between working and getting a check as opposed to waiting until age 65 to get the money I worked for for the previous 40 years. Employer's don't [usually] pay their employees on the spot because it's not particularly expedient to do so; cutting checks every day requires more hassle than it's worth, and most workers would probably prefer the weekly or bi-weekly lump sum anyway.

Furthermore, Social Security [as I said earlier] is still not a trade because of the lack of choice alone. The fact that I may actually see a return [if I'm lucky and don't die, or if I'm lucky and the politicans aren't just corrupt bastards] makes no difference in the big picture.

D. And, slavery is not neccesarily for little profit, and it's not neccesarily for no profit, and it's not neccesaril for a substancial profit, it's simply forced labor.
That's too simple of a definition, really. I can think of no example that involves forced labor for sufficient recompensation, so as I see it you're still only half right. Slavery is is always forced labor, whether you get something from it or not. I think it's safe to say that we can define slavery in nearly any context [leaving aside things like chores, errands, and the like] as not receiving a benefit for your services, whether that benefit is money or a reprise on beatings makes no difference. Since this restatement fails to invalidate my original argument, I'm still not impressed.

Don't mind if I do.


One: It's semantics: if you're going to use a word that denotes the arrangement or composition of words you lose enormous amounts of credibility if you can't spell it.

Two: You're apparently trying to tell me that an unfair trade is essentially 'fair.' You're making the assumption that my philosophy places arbitrary values on completely different amounts of cash. Do your homework before you say things like "According to your philosophy" next time, please. We don't pretend to say that an arbitrary amount of money is acceptable remuneration for a day's work.

How very convenient for you. I lose credibility simply because I'm a terrble speller... or maybe your just arguing cimantics.

Actually, I never see anywhere in the arguement you presented to me that dictated people having to be paid fairly. So, before you accuse me of falsely using logic, please look at your arguement first.

Way to completely miss the point. People who do this make me see red: they ignore the actual argument and latch on to the numbers as if they were the lynchpin of my attack. I'll put it in laymen's terms without using the numbers this time:

If I work, and the government takes out a certain percentage of money that it demanded my employer pay me in the first place, the government is subsidizing my labor for a certain percentage of time proportional to the percentage of that tax. Whether it's 10% or not is irrelevant, nor does it matter how often I work or what the wages are, really.

If you're so pissed off about it, run for office. That way, other economically Conservative people like you can have someone they rely on in office.

Also, note for future reference, whenever I go out on a stupid arguement like that, ignore me, cause I'm simply amusing myself with idiocy.

Except that there's a small difference in the amount of time between working and getting a check as opposed to waiting until age 65 to get the money I worked for for the previous 40 years. Employer's don't [usually] pay their employees on the spot because it's not particularly expedient to do so; cutting checks every day requires more hassle than it's worth, and most workers would probably prefer the weekly or bi-weekly lump sum anyway.

I said relatively. One month compared to twenty years is about the same as one hour is comepared to one month.

Furthermore, Social Security [as I said earlier] is still not a trade because of the lack of choice alone. The fact that I may actually see a return [if I'm lucky and don't die, or if I'm lucky and the politicans aren't just corrupt bastards] makes no difference in the big picture.

I am confident in your abilities to manage your money, but not so much everyone elses. Furthermore, for most of the country, it is not something they do involuntarily, so by calling it slavery, you're saying that most of the country is in bondage, when in fact most like social security. Personally, I'd rather people live to see 70 by means of social security than to comply to a few people who don't like it.

As I remember Deleuze saying, the greater good for the greater amount.

That's too simple of a definition, really. I can think of no example that involves forced labor for sufficient recompensation, so as I see it you're still only half right. Slavery is is always forced labor, whether you get something from it or not. I think it's safe to say that we can define slavery in nearly any context [leaving aside things like chores, errands, and the like] as not receiving a benefit for your services, whether that benefit is money or a reprise on beatings makes no difference. Since this restatement fails to invalidate my original argument, I'm still not impressed.

Oh wait, I just realized something... you defined slavery as being forced labor for little or no pay. But by acknowledging that being paid highly for that work is an acceptable forced labor, your acknowledging social security is acceptable, so, do you want to give up that part of the arguement, or your whole one?

And by the way, I don't care what sort of impression my arguements making on you. I'm simply trying to state my opinion and argue for it, I'm not doing this for your aprovel...(sp?)

I find it strange that you hold on to philosophy so strongly. Numbers are a very big part of facts, and I thought facts where what you encouraged. Facts are fact, I believe is what you said.





I know you'll probably respond to this with something that makes my logic look faulty, as you've done in the past.

How very convenient for you. I lose credibility simply because I'm a terrble speller... or maybe your just arguing cimantics.
Were it not for the decidedly acerbic tone of your post, I'd probably have left it alone. But when you say things like 'There is a response to your precious areguement though,' it tends to rub me in a certain direction.1

Actually, I never see anywhere in the arguement you presented to me that dictated people having to be paid fairly. So, before you accuse me of falsely using logic, please look at your arguement first.
Read it again:

If I'm working, I'm earning money, right? That's the way things work: I provide a service and I get monetary remuneration. That's the way it should be: it's a fair trade, both parties get what they want, right?
Emphasis added. This aside, it's common freaking sense.

If you're so pissed off about it, run for office. That way, other economically Conservative people like you can have someone they rely on in office.
Heh with a platform like mine I don't see myself gathering many votes. Still, the idea of being a public servant makes me retch.

I said relatively. One month compared to twenty years is about the same as one hour is comepared to one month.
And this means what exactly? I know what 'relatively' means, and yes; I saw it. It changes nothing. Try answering the actual argument please.

I am confident in your abilities to manage your money, but not so much everyone elses.
What other people do [or don't do] with their money should not be any of your [or my] concern. If you want to be a magnanimous humanitarian and donate money to people who pissed all their money away in their youth, fine: but don't make a policy out of protecting people from themselves. There will always be stupid folks who piss their money away on dumb shit, and the idea that SS can somehow smooth over this problem is amusing at best.

Furthermore, for most of the country, it is not something they do involuntarily, so by calling it slavery, you're saying that most of the country is in bondage, when in fact most like social security.
One: Yes, it is something they do involuntarily. I don't remember someone coming around and asking me: "Hey, would you like us to save money for you when you get old?"

Two: I doubt 'most' like Social Security, but that's irrelevant because as I keep saying, 280 million people are just as capable of having their heads up their collective colons as one person is: this fact has been exemplified in our last two Presidential elections.

Three: If you are going to throw reason into the wind and try to validate your arguments with things like "when in fact most like social security," it would be nice to see a source, especially for something as frequently debated as this. Generally this is a fiarly pointless endeavor though, since just about any reference statistic is going to be bullshit, whether it's on my side or not.

Personally, I'd rather people live to see 70 by means of social security than to comply to a few people who don't like it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Social Security is not the reason people are living longer in this day and age; the reason is because of stellar advancements in the field of biomedical science. Furthermore, I would rather see people live to age 70 because they fought through life on their own merits, rather than allowing the state to nanny them from cradle to grave.

As I remember Deleuze saying, the greater good for the greater amount.
Deleuze and I have discussed this concept at length in another thread, which has since been archived. My problem with that is it's too simple; it treats 'happiness' as units to be measured just like liters or inches or what-have-you. It also assumes that actions cause other actions , bypassing the need for entities altogether. Actions do not cause other actions, [i]entities cause actions: this is as true in philosophy as it is in physics. No single act, no amount of money, no magic government policy can guarantee happiness for anyone, and we need to drop the pretense that it does. Happiness is something only you hold the keys to; and while an additional amount of money might actually make you happy, there's no guarantee that it will do the same for me.

Oh wait, I just realized something... you defined slavery as being forced labor for little or no pay. But by acknowledging that being paid highly for that work is an acceptable forced labor, your acknowledging social security is acceptable, so, do you want to give up that part of the arguement, or your whole one?
Uh, not my a longshot. In fact, I can barely understand what you're trying to say here. I think you're reading too heavily into my argument, either that or you're not understanding it at all. Particularly puzzling to me is the "But by acknowledging that being paid highly for that work is an acceptable forced labor, your acknowledging social security is acceptable" passage.

That said, I'm not sure how much more I can break this down. I'll try one more time.

Regardless of whether you actually want to call it 'slavery' or not , it is an unavoidable fact that I'm not being paid for 10% of the time I spend at work. On the surface, it might appear to make a difference that I'm actually choosing to work, but that doesn't mean shit since every job in the country [more or less] is taxed at a proportional rate. So no, I don't really have any choice here at all: no matter where I work those douchebag politicians are going to rip a percentage out of my check. One more time: [i]this means that I'm not being paid for a certain amount of time that I spend at work.

And by the way, I don't care what sort of impression my arguements making on you. I'm simply trying to state my opinion and argue for it, I'm not doing this for your aprovel...(sp?)
This response may surprise you but... good. No one should gauge their worth from the approval they receive from others.

I find it strange that you hold on to philosophy so strongly. Numbers are a very big part of facts, and I thought facts where what you encouraged. Facts are fact, I believe is what you said.
Firstly, I've not seen any numerical data presented in your posts. Secondly, numbers don't mean shit to me when it comes to policy because [like I keep saying] large amounts of people are prefectly capable of being complete goddamn idiots. Numbers only validate scientific fact, not moral or political fact.

I know you'll probably respond to this with something that makes my logic look faulty, as you've done in the past.
I wouldn't be responding if I thought it wasn't faulty.