Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

-Agrarian Justice

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31271/31 ... #2H_4_0029" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Barack Obama wrote:]If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

So...you're saying Barack isn't even original anymore?

clenz wrote:So...you're saying Barack isn't even original anymore?

How can Barack be original when they all "look the same?"

So, Obama's teleprompter is a plagiarist?

clenz wrote:So...you're saying Barack isn't even original anymore?

I think the point is that even ideas are from the social milieu. There's no such thing as a truly original idea. Paine's ideas were influenced heavily by Enlightenment thinkers. Separate the man from society and he will not be rich... either in personal possessions or in ideas.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

clenz wrote:So...you're saying Barack isn't even original anymore?

I think the point is that even ideas are from the social milieu. There's no such thing as a truly original idea. Paine's ideas were influenced heavily by Enlightenment thinkers. Separate the man from society and he will not be rich... either in personal possessions or in ideas.

ASUG8 wrote:So, Obama's teleprompter is a plagiarist?

Only if you're a plagiarist for recycling the same tired, unoriginal teleprompter jokes.

Seems like two completely different statements to me.

Paine is basically saying you can't be wealthy without society involving division of labor. No one doesn't believe that.

Obama is basically saying you don't deserve any credit if you have a successful business. Spoken like someone who has never had to run a business. Simply having infrastructure and farmers to grow your food won't make you a successful entrepreneur.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:So, Obama's teleprompter is a plagiarist?

Only if you're a plagiarist for recycling the same tired, unoriginal teleprompter jokes.

The government, who provided us with the internet, roads, bridges, schools, and infrastructure....where did they get their funding?

ASUG8 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Only if you're a plagiarist for recycling the same tired, unoriginal teleprompter jokes.

The government, who provided us with the internet, roads, bridges, schools, and infrastructure....where did they get their funding?

The jobs. But they provide the environment for those jobs.

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
The government, who provided us with the internet, roads, bridges, schools, and infrastructure....where did they get their funding?

The jobs. But they provide the environment for those jobs.

It's circular logic, chicken and egg argument.

It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

ASUG8 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
The jobs. But they provide the environment for those jobs.

It's circular logic, chicken and egg argument.

It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

You're circular logic. The government gives you the air you breathe.

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
It's circular logic, chicken and egg argument.

It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

You're circular logic. The government gives you the air you breathe.

The government is here because citizens put it here.

ASUG8 wrote: It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

Interesting. Especially so... since in "Agrarian Justice"... Paine is arguing for a tax to pay for social insurance programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Fucking socialist founding fathers.

clenz wrote:So...you're saying Barack isn't even original anymore?

Nope, he ripped off Romney...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc[/youtube]

Buncha no talent ass clowns in this election.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

Interesting. Especially so... since in "Agrarian Justice"... Paine is arguing for a tax to pay for social insurance programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Fucking socialist founding fathers.

I'm sorry, was I wrong in my statement? Taxes and the Chinese buying our debt are what are funding the infrastructure. The government provides no product, only makes the decisions to spend the money of others based on the general electorate determining who those players will be. You make me out to be some unfeeling person who doesn't believe in "supporting the general welfare" of the people of the US which couldn't be further from the truth. The problem is it's gone well past what Paine's intent was in my opinion.

You know, sometimes Obama steps on his dick - it happens. You don't have to be such an apologist when he does it.

Thomas Paine is a commie, rabble-rousing pinko non-conformist.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

Interesting. Especially so... since in "Agrarian Justice"... Paine is arguing for a tax to pay for social insurance programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Fucking socialist founding fathers.

Here...you're a big fan of charts and graphs....this one came from a government site that you and I are apparently funding.

ASUG8 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: The jobs. But they provide the environment for those jobs.

It's circular logic, chicken and egg argument.

It all comes back to the argument that the government can't provide what it hasn't taken from someone else.

You're right but it's a little more complicated in that it's not necessarily a one-to-one relationship. The government has taken money out of individual and business hands and used it in ways that have arguably benefited society to greater (creating a more highly educated workforce, infrastructure such as the interstate highway systems, all of the innovations that resulted from NASA) or lesser degrees (anything buried within the sheer byzantine structure of government) than the value of the money they took. Unfortunately, the more government tries to do the less effective and more byzantine it gets and the less value we get for every tax dollar we send to Washington.

Obama's entire statement does bear some resemblance to Paine's but he's going to be beaten over the head with the 'you didn't do that.' SKJF can't complain about it being taken out of context without being a hypocrite if he doesn't admit that Donks have done the same thing to Romney ('I'm not concerned about the very poor').

Both candidates have stepped on their wankers a few times and hopefully will continue to do so. If they're not going to talk about real issues and real solutions than I might as well be entertained.

I agree with ya 88....when I'm evaluating a charity I'm going to give to I look at its expense ratio - the amount that actually ends up in the hands of the people it was intended to help. No question we have some great things because of government, but I'd really hate to see the percentage of total revenues that our bureaucracy constitutes.

UNI88 wrote:SKJF can't complain about it being taken out of context without being a hypocrite if he doesn't admit that Donks have done the same thing to Romney ('I'm not concerned about the very poor').

Both sides do take things out of context. No doubt about it. Started a thread yesterday on a Lewis Black rant from the Daily Show on BOTH sides taking things out of context.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

UNI88 wrote:SKJF can't complain about it being taken out of context without being a hypocrite if he doesn't admit that Donks have done the same thing to Romney ('I'm not concerned about the very poor').

Both sides do take things out of context. No doubt about it. Started a thread yesterday on a Lewis Black rant from the Daily Show on BOTH sides taking things out of context.

And unfortunately both sides will continue to do so as long as the core party faithful continue to lap it up hook, line & sinker.

I saw the Lewis Black thread but don't watch the Daily Show. I was interested in watching the one with Fareed Zakaria but missed it.

Living in a population of other humans provides the opportunity to be "rich," etc. But the mere fact of living in a population of humans provides the same "background" benefit to everyone. One who indeed becomes "rich" owes no more to the population than one who does not become rich does.

The fallacy is the idea that one who parlays the background benefit provided by living in a human population into success somehow owes more for the benefit provided by that background than one who does not.

Before anyone says it: I realize that within the realm of living in a human population there is variation in other factors leading to success. I'm just talking about that one factor: Living within a human population.

One person is born in the United States to a middle class family. He is smart. He also works hard. He goes through school, goes through medical school, and becomes a highly prized medical specialist. He makes a lot of money.

Another person is born in the United States to a middle class family. He is not so smart. Or maybe he does not have so great a work ethic. He ends in poverty.

The first person owes no more to the society than the second one does. The first person does not owe more simply because he was more successful.

Additionally, the guy who ends up as a highly prized medical specialist is contributing something the society wants and needs. He is already "giving back" by virtue of the skill he developed.

Hmm. And how is it possible for your average middle class American to receive the training necessary to become a doctor? Why is it more difficult to become a highly trained doctor in Uzbekistan than the US?

I'm sure the billions of federal $ given to medical schools and the billions of federal loans are of no help for your average middle class American whatsoever.

It's not to take away anything from Joe the Doctor's accomplishments. But, without a government... we'd be treating cancer with incense and incantations... and Joe the Shaman would be paid in chickens.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Hmm. And how is it possible for your average middle class American to receive the training necessary to become a doctor? Why is it more difficult to become a highly trained doctor in Uzbekistan than the US?

I'm sure the billions of federal $ given to medical schools and the billions of federal loans are of no help for your average middle class American whatsoever.

It's not to take away anything from Joe the Doctor's accomplishments. But, without a government... we'd be treating cancer with incense and incantations... and Joe the Shaman would be paid in chickens.

The point is that within the context of the human population involved...the United States...everybody benefits from the background of being in the United States. The successful owe no more to that background than the unsuccessful do. The idea that "you owe us more because you were more successful" is nonsense.

The successful also, on average, contribute to the population by virtue of being successful. Take the Chik fil a guy mentioned in the other thread. People work in his restaurants. People can stop and get a nice tasting sandwich. So on and so forth.

Obama said something about how there are a lot of smart people and a lot of people who work hard. Well, there are a lot of people who live in the United States. Given living in the United States, some people are successful and some people are not.