[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Bullcrap. There is no human shortage by any stretch of the imagination so no, we shouldn't be paying people to reproduce.

Define shortage. The level of prosperity enjoyed today would not be possible without the current population.

Technology is making it possible to do more with less people, but people are always required to advance knowledge and cultivate resources.

Then there is the whole school funding mentality, where it is literally impossible to throw too much money at schools. Levies, levies, and more levies and it is never enough. 3/4 of the State's entire budget and it still isn't enough. State paid kindergarten and pre-school isn't enough- I suppose the State will eventually be teaching fetii in the wombs?

No disagreement here. We spend more per capita on education and have poor results.

Regardless, I maintain that children are a community garden, and it's in our interest that they grow healthy so that they bear good fruit.

It took a community to raise us, and in return we have a responsibility to raise our replacements.

This fact is independent of the argument of overpopulation. That subject has nothing to do with the importance of current children growing and producing fruit that will be shared with us.

Originally Posted by darcane

That just tells me Social Security is broken...

It's supposed to be a final safety net for a small percentage of old and disabled (as in actually unable to work... lots of fraud these days here.) rather than a pool of money for all to dip into.

My failed attempt at strikethrough also resulted in my failed attempt to convey sarcasm. I've fixed the strikethrough word and added an emoticon to help others see that I was being facetious.

Originally Posted by XYZ

Is taxation by government harmful to the individual?

Yes, which was my point!

At first I thought you were being intentionally obtuse, but now I'm beginning to think you aren't. Which is it?

Huh? That's philosophical double-speak.

My stating the definition of a word in it's context is philisophical double-speak. How so?

Who's doing the robbing? The STATE. The governmental STATE, not "the state of being".

I never disagreed or implied otherwise. Did you see somewhere that I suggested otherwise?


[quote]
So the "problem" is that Paul is "poor" and the STATE is invoked by those like you to make things even, square and fair, and "just" - according to you and as many masses of people that can vote for "justice".

Are you asking me, me; or are you asking a rhetorical question to a broader audience?

If asking me, personally, I ask you to cite where I suggested the state is responsible for making things economically fair and just?

I assume you are referring to shadenfreude... You can look it up and realize its meaning.

I did look it up, which is how I understood it's meaning and came to respond coherently to your use of it.

You might also become aware that the National Socialist party of Germany was referred to with an infamous, well known, abbreviation. (Hint: we probably know what it is, and to where it leads.)

I withdraw my praise for avoiding references to Nazi's, for you only. The flip side to that coin is you win the award for being first to invoke the most negative imagery many can think of.