If There Were Less Restrictions On People...

[GregoryJoseph]

...from their governments, do you think they would be more charitable toward their fellow man?

[Hottub]

The only ones who would benefit are the Thai Lads.

Sad but true.

[underdog]

Absolutely not.

You have to teach most children just to share their toys.

Plus, this whole health care debate has shown me who heartless, cruel and selfish a good number of people in this country are. It's sickening.

[GregoryJoseph]

Absolutely not.

You have to teach most children just to share their toys.

Plus, this whole health care debate has shown me who heartless, cruel and selfish a good number of people in this country are. It's sickening.

Perhaps if the people didn't fear even more of their money going toward taxes they'd be more charitable?

[TooLowBrow]

there are people who tithe 10% to a church or to charities

but i think thats after taxes.

so i guess if they werent paying taxes theyd tithe more

[spoon]

Absolutely not.

You have to teach most children just to share their toys.

Plus, this whole health care debate has shown me who heartless, cruel and selfish a good number of people in this country are. It's sickening.

I agree with UD. No fucking way would they step up, it's a nec evil (meaning taxes).

[ToiletCrusher]

Loosening government restrictions may simply make people less vested in the idea of charity.

If you knew you had no ties, no limitations, wouldn't you do everything you wanted to do without concern of how it impacts anyone else?

It is expected that most would answer no.

But, by nature we are selfish.

[GregoryJoseph]

I agree with UD. No fucking way would they step up

I do not agree.

I think the majority of human beings have an innate desire to help one another, given our penchant for society and companionship.

I think that if they had the means, people would be far more willing to help others.

[GregoryJoseph]

ToiletCrusher and I posted almost exactly opposite opinions at the same time.

Hmmm...

[ToiletCrusher]

weird.

[underdog]

Perhaps if the people didn't fear even more of their money going toward taxes they'd be more charitable?

Maybe to a point, but I don't think it could ever be nearly enough.

I think the extra generosity would easily be offset by the selfishness of other.

And people's generosity usually only extends to far. People only want to help their family or neighbors. Just because someone isn't American, most won't help them.

[furie]

no

[weekapaugjz]

Maybe to a point, but I don't think it could ever be nearly enough.

I think the extra generosity would easily be offset by the selfishness of other.

And people's generosity usually only extends to far. People only want to help their family or neighbors. Just because someone isn't American, most won't help them.

as i like to say, out of sight, out of mind.

[GregoryJoseph]

Just because someone isn't American, most won't help them.

I don't believe that either.

Don't believe the hype that this is a nation of biased, racists, cold hearted people. I know that notion sells movies, books, and news stories, but it simply isn't true.

[epo]

Your lack of critical thinking skills combined with your oddly good common sense makes no fucking sense....

[foodcourtdruide]

...from their governments, do you think they would be more charitable toward their fellow man?

Nope. The notion of eliminating government run social programs and having charitable wealthy people care for the impoverished and sick is one of the most laughable and naive things I've ever heard.

[TooLowBrow]

I don't believe that either.

Don't believe the hype that this is a nation of biased, racists, cold hearted people. I know that notion sells movies, books, and news stories, but it simply isn't true.

i agree

the majority voted for obama, who is black and made it pretty clear that he was going to help the downtrodden

so the majority must be non racist and charitable

[Suspect Chin]

Absolutely not.

You have to teach most children just to share their toys.

Plus, this whole health care debate has shown me who heartless, cruel and selfish a good number of people in this country are. It's sickening.

I think that's the point. People don't want to be forced to give to others. People don't want to feel forced to do anything. Most people are decent human beings who I believe would give freely of their excess resources (time or money) once they feel their basic needs are met.

[GregoryJoseph]

i agree

the majority voted for obama, who is black and made it pretty clear that he was going to help the downtrodden

so the majority must be non racist and charitable

I think that's the point. People don't want to be forced to give to others. People don't want to feel forced to do anything. Most people are decent human beings who I believe would give freely of their excess resources (time or money) once they feel their basic needs are met.

I agree with both of you.

Well said.

[foodcourtdruide]

I think that's the point. People don't want to be forced to give to others. People don't want to feel forced to do anything. Most people are decent human beings who I believe would give freely of their excess resources (time or money) once they feel their basic needs are met.

Why would they when they don't do that now? How much of this nations wealth is untouched? How much money do people die with?

[TooLowBrow]

Why would they when they don't do that now? How much of this nations wealth is untouched? How much money do people die with?

when i die i want to be buried with my money and assets

[foodcourtdruide]

when i die i want to be buried with my money and assets

Me too. And my wife, living or dead.

[epo]

Nope. The notion of eliminating government run social programs and having charitable wealthy people care for the impoverished and sick is one of the most laughable and naive things I've ever heard.

Gvac yearns for a return to the ethos of the 1880s.

[yojimbo7248]

I think people will only be naturally charitable within a very small group/tribe. Government is necessary to make someone in rural Maine care about a person in inner city New Orleans.

[foodcourtdruide]

Gvac yearns for a return to the ethos of the 1880s.

Yes, let's go back to the late 1800's/early 1900's. When the spot I'm sitting on was full of rat infested tenaments because the wealthy were so willing to share their money and power.

[TooLowBrow]

I think people will only be naturally charitable within a very small group/tribe. Government is necessary to make someone in rural Maine care about a person in inner city New Orleans.

i know my church was going to send money to new orleans after katrina, but since the govt didnt make them, we just kept it

[spoon]

I don't, people are selfish...especially in this day and age. It's not everyone, but more than not.

[GregoryJoseph]

Why would they when they don't do that now? How much of this nations wealth is untouched? How much money do people die with?

Who says that they don't? Just because it doesn't make headline news every day, there are more good and unselfish people in this world than there are evil and miserly.

And I would be willing to bet that far more of this nation's wealth is "touched" than untouched.

[GregoryJoseph]

people are selfish...especially in this day and age.

Perhaps because of the restrictions placed upon them...

[IMSlacker]

Some would and some wouldn't.

[Crispy123]

I think people will only be naturally charitable within a very small group/tribe. Government is necessary to make someone in rural Maine care about a person in inner city New Orleans.

I agree with this.

This is what makes something like slavery acceptable to people. Im sure there were people who were considered very generous to their neighbors in Egypt and Alabama that some Africans and Jews might disagree with.

[foodcourtdruide]

This post is the libertarian credo. Abolish the government and the wealthy will care for the poor. I'm being really honest and I want those who disagreed with me to think about this.

Let's say you have a child and they are born with a terrible illness, would you prefer a centralized government to help care for hospitalization, medicine, etc of the child or would you rather depend on some centralized fund the wealthiest people of society have put together?

Also, think of what that means? We're literally depending on our wealthy lords to care for us in our times of need, instead of having everyone contribute.

This thread scares me!@!!!

[TooLowBrow]

look at our rich, the brad pitts', bill gates', the sandra bullocks'

all they do is hold onto their wealth.

not one of them has ever helped anyone under them

[GregoryJoseph]

This post is the libertarian credo. Abolish the government and the wealthy will care for the poor. I'm being really honest and I want those who disagreed with me to think about this.

Let's say you have a child and they are born with a terrible illness, would you prefer a centralized government to help care for hospitalization, medicine, etc of the child or would you rather depend on some centralized fund the wealthiest people of society have put together?

Also, think of what that means? We're literally depending on our wealthy lords to care for us in our times of need, instead of having everyone contribute.

This thread scares me!@!!!

I believe you're overthinking this and placing your own political agenda in front of the basic question.

[spoon]

Yes, let's go back to the late 1800's/early 1900's. When the spot I'm sitting on was full of rat infested tenaments because the wealthy were so willing to share their money and power.

Hey, that's Staten Island right now too!

[foodcourtdruide]

Who says that they don't? Just because it doesn't make headline news every day, there are more good and unselfish people in this world than there are evil and miserly.

And I would be willing to bet that far more of this nation's wealth is "touched" than untouched.

I'd be willing to bet a significant amount is untouched. Sitting in bank accounts, accumulating.

I'm sorry, I just disagree with you here.

[foodcourtdruide]

Hey, that's Staten Island right now too!

Lol, I work in downtown Manhattan.

[GregoryJoseph]

Yes, let's go back to the late 1800's/early 1900's. When the spot I'm sitting on was full of rat infested tenaments because the wealthy were so willing to share their money and power.

Like the slums and ghettos of today?

Apparently government welfare didn't solve those problems either.

[ShowerBench]

Given that we're a representative democracy, this government's restrictions and level of charity more or less reflects our collective tendency toward (and level of tolerance of) both.

[yojimbo7248]

This post is the libertarian credo. Abolish the government and the wealthy will care for the poor. I'm being really honest and I want those who disagreed with me to think about this.

Let's say you have a child and they are born with a terrible illness, would you prefer a centralized government to help care for hospitalization, medicine, etc of the child or would you rather depend on some centralized fund the wealthiest people of society have put together?

Also, think of what that means? We're literally depending on our wealthy lords to care for us in our times of need, instead of having everyone contribute.

This thread scares me!@!!!

I agree. I'm not knocking charity but you need a systematic welfare system unless you have a very small, almost commune like community.

[TooLowBrow]

Given that we're a representative democracy, this government's restrictions and level of charity more or less reflects our collective tendency toward (and level of tolerance of) both.

youre dull but you have a point

[foodcourtdruide]

I believe you're overthinking this and placing your own political agenda in front of the basic question.

Overthinking it? Sure. I guess it's my political point of view. I'm not sure if it's my agenda. I don't know if I even have an agenda. I've never thought about that word until this very second.

[spoon]

look at our rich, the brad pitts', bill gates', the sandra bullocks'

all they do is hold onto their wealth.

not one of them has ever helped anyone under them

Ok, you're 3 for 25,000,000. And they have money to waste.

[foodcourtdruide]

Like the slums and ghettos of today?

Apparently government welfare didn't solve those problems either.

The slums and ghettos of today are NOTHING like those tenaments. Seriously man, not even close.

[foodcourtdruide]

I agree. I'm not knocking charity but you need a systematic welfare system unless you have a very small, almost commune like community.

I totally agree with your points about small communities. I like your style my friend.

[foodcourtdruide]

The slums and ghettos of today are NOTHING like those tenaments. Seriously man, not even close.

Ok, maybe "not even close" is a hyperbole, but you catch my drift!

[foodcourtdruide]

look at our rich, the brad pitts', bill gates', the sandra bullocks'

all they do is hold onto their wealth.

not one of them has ever helped anyone under them

lol, man that's 3 people!

[epo]

The slums and ghettos of today are NOTHING like those tenaments. Seriously man, not even close.

Shh! Gvac's history books are sitting next to his copy of the Federalist Papers, unread.

[underdog]

I don't believe that either.

Don't believe the hype that this is a nation of biased, racists, cold hearted people. I know that notion sells movies, books, and news stories, but it simply isn't true.

Are you kidding me?

Look at the immigration debate. People don't want to help other people just because they're born in a slightly different area.

Also, look at people's reactions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing a bunch of Americans is terrible, but wiping out thousands upon thousands of innocent people who are on the other side of the world is ok.

People, for the most part, simply do not care unless it effects them somehow.

[spoon]

I don't think we need to go at each other for having a different opinion. To me it's nice to see someone/some people who think that strongly of human nature, yet I personally disagree and think they are being a little naive.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I do not agree.

I think the majority of human beings have an innate desire to help one another, given our penchant for society and companionship.

I think that if they had the means, people would be far more willing to help others.

Sorry to be the county misanthrope, but humans who have an innate charitable side that takes pleasure in helping others are doing it mostly because helping somebody else makes them feel better about themselves in turn. In other words, it's just selfish motivation in most cases. Not even Gandhi and Mother Theresa were above selfishness at times.

[GregoryJoseph]

I don't think we need to go at each other for having a different opinion.

Unfortunately, THIS is what our government (and our society) has become.

Respectful, civilized, rational debate is a thing of the past. Shouting someone down, belittling them, and not answering the question but instead repeating a mantra is the new style.

I don't care for it all that much.

[spoon]

Are you kidding me?

Look at the immigration debate. People don't want to help other people just because they're born in a slightly different area.

Also, look at people's reactions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing a bunch of Americans is terrible, but wiping out thousands upon thousands of innocent people who are on the other side of the world is ok.

People, for the most part, simply do not care unless it effects them somehow.

I disagree on these. I have issue with illegals coming here and using our ERs as their personal docs ILLEGALLY. It has nothing to do with charity, it's destroying an already weak system we have in place here.

I also think people don't think it's ok to kill thousands of innocent people. I think this post is filled with foodcourt's hyperbole to say the least.

[GregoryJoseph]

Sorry to be the county misanthrope, but humans who have an innate charitable side that takes pleasure in helping others are doing it mostly because helping somebody else makes them feel better about themselves in turn. In other words, it's just selfish motivation in most cases. Not even Gandhi and Mother Theresa were above selfishness at times.

Again, I disagree.

Even if your point is true, however, does it matter what the motivation is if the end result is that those in need are helped?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Perhaps because of the restrictions placed upon them...

I don't know about that.

I think people have been much nicer and far less likely to kill or attack people exactly because of certain restrictions, such as not being permitted to drink in public places, not letting them drive drunk, or have it be illegal to attack somebody in the first place.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Again, I disagree.

Even if your point is true, however, does it matter what the motivation is if the end result is that those in need are helped?

It does when you come across the people you don't want to help.

[GregoryJoseph]

I don't know about that.

I think people have been much nicer and far less likely to kill or attack people exactly because of certain restrictions, such as not being permitted to drink in public places, not letting them drive drunk, or have it be illegal to attack somebody in the first place.

I did not say to abolish ALL restrictions. I'm not calling for anarchy.

Obviously every society needs some sort of ruling body.

My point is merely that the more invasive you become in someone's life, the more they feel they have to hide from you.

[underdog]

I don't think we need to go at each other for having a different opinion. To me it's nice to see someone/some people who think that strongly of human nature, yet I personally disagree and think they are being a little naive.

I agree. I used to feel the same way as Gvac, but I've just grown more cynical of my fellow man.

I disagree on these. I have issue with illegals coming here and using our ERs as their personal docs ILLEGALLY. It has nothing to do with charity, it's destroying an already weak system we have in place here.

I also think people don't think it's ok to kill thousands of innocent people. I think this post is filled with foodcourt's hyperbole to say the least.

People do not care about the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the most part. Maybe they're not "ok" with their death, but they flat out don't care if they're alive, as long as the good ol' USA is "safe".

As far as immigration, I'm not even talking about health care; I'm just talking about them coming here at all. There's a large portion of our country that is completely against immigration.

[underdog]

My point is merely that the more invasive you become in someone's life, the more they feel they have to hide from you.

I definitely agree with this point, for the most part. I just don't think there would be enough charity to offset the others.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I did not say to abolish ALL restrictions. I'm not calling for anarchy.

Obviously every society needs some sort of ruling body.

My point is merely that the more invasive you become in someone's life, the more they feel they have to hide from you.

Gotta agree with you on that point then. Banning certain substances just boosts the income of the criminals who sell the stuff on the black market. If you tell people what's good art and what's not, they'll want to see the bad art more than the good. It'll drive 'em underground.

But I think people are still relegated to charity for those they know, like, or can see up close. Hard to be charitable to those you've never met or had cause to care about before...

[foodcourtdruide]

Disagreeing with GVAC feels worse than disagreeing with Bennington.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Shh! Gvac's history books are sitting next to his copy of the Federalist Papers, unread.

And I laughed.

[GregoryJoseph]

I agree. I used to feel the same way as Gvac, but I've just grown more cynical of my fellow man.

Then you are destined to be bitter.

In order to be trusted you must first trust. You may get burned from time to time, but the answer isn't closing yourself off for the rest of your life.

[underdog]

Then you are destined to be bitter.

In order to be trusted you must first trust. You may get burned from time to time, but the answer isn't closing yourself off for the rest of your life.

I'm already bitter.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I'm already bitter.

I know what could sweeten that palette...

[GregoryJoseph]

Give up patriotism, religiosity, and all ideology.

Become one with the world around you.

Destroy your ego.

Imagine.

[yojimbo7248]

Give up patriotism, religiosity, and all ideology.

Become one with the world around you.

Destroy your ego.

Imagine.

I'm so glad you have gone with this persona and gave Gvac the boot. I know it won't be long before we are talking dissolving egos, traveling through astral planes, and smashing narrow definitions of "real"/"unreal"

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I'm so glad you have gone with this persona and gave Gvac the boot. I know it won't be long before we are talking dissolving egos, traveling through astral planes, and smashing narrow definitions of "real"/"unreal"

you guys are giving me a contact high through the internet, which is normally really hard to do.

[spoon]

Then you are destined to be bitter.

In order to be trusted you must first trust. You may get burned from time to time, but the answer isn't closing yourself off for the rest of your life.

Or you smartly realize the true nature of the world around you and adjust appropriately.

[booster11373]

GVAc has been watching Kung Fu re-runs

I wonder what the difference in charitable contributions is in countries with more Govt "intrusion" versus us here in the wild west

[GregoryJoseph]

Or you smartly realize the true nature of the world around you and adjust appropriately.

Meaning...?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Meaning...?

Charity exists when your own basic survival isn't an issue up for debate.

[underdog]

Give up patriotism, religiosity, and all ideology.

Become one with the world around you.

Destroy your ego.

Imagine.

I hope for those days.

I can't wait for "pride" to disappear. We're all humans. That's what we need to be proud of.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I hope for those days.

I can't wait for "pride" to disappear. We're all humans. That's what we need to be proud of.

Disappears at death. But I like you cockeyed optimists and your thoughts... keep 'em up 'cuz I don't mind being proven wrong on this subject. I just don't think anyone will.

[underdog]

Disappears at death. But I like you cockeyed optimists and your thoughts... keep 'em up 'cuz I don't mind being proven wrong on this subject. I just don't think anyone will.

We're slowly becoming "one world". Europe is doing a much better job of it than we are.

[booster11373]

We're slowly becoming "one world". Europe is doing a much better job of it than we are.

"One World" will freak out all the cowboys, they will expect to see black helicopters from the UN or I guess the EU now

[CofyCrakCocaine]

We're slowly becoming "one world". Europe is doing a much better job of it than we are.

Eh. Their track record hasn't been too fantastic. They did way more genocides, jew/gypsy/anybody hunts, rapes, burglaries, pillaging, and more war than all the USA put together for me to entirely trust in Europe's amazing love for humankind. People seem to forget the whole Suez Canal incident.

They unite against a common foe then fall upon themselves like wild dogs too frequently in history for me to trust 'em much. Healthcare included.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I do find it objectionable that this nice thoughtful thread is being thrown into the pits of obscurity by the ass-licking thread right now.

[booster11373]

According to some of the christians that I have talked to, A one world goverment will be one of the triggers for the "Prince of Peace" to come back and kick ass.

Mother fucker better come strapped!

[spoon]

According to some of the christians that I have talked to, A one world goverment will be one of the triggers for the "Prince of Peace" to come back and kick ass.

Mother fucker better come strapped!

Wouldn't it be nice if fucking christians actually lived in the now/world they actually inhabit?! Fuck their always looking to the end of days and triggers for doom. Every fucking generation of christians clain they're in the end days to up their numbers and for more control of people's minds. I hate religion.

[Bob'sBitchTits]

Wouldn't it be nice if fucking christians actually lived in the now/world they actually inhabit?! Fuck their always looking to the end of days and triggers for doom. Every fucking generation of christians clain they're in the end days to up their numbers and for more control of people's minds. I hate religion.

Not just Christians, but all people want to be part of the "last" generation.
Better said, "Every generation wants to be the last."
I don't know who I am quoting but I know I heard or read that somewhere.

It's the reason assholes walk aroung going, "If you remember the 70's then you weren't there." and shit like that. "Our" youth was the best. Blah blah blah.
It's all about wanting to be remebered and revered.
Putting more significance on your own time span than is really necessary.

Sorry, I typed lots of words. Remember and revere me?

[earthbrown]

If the taxes weren't so high, I would have more money to spend on "stuff", thus stimulating the economy so more people could work to consume my dollars. More people working the more who can provide for themselves.

Too many people feel entitled, govt should provide...

1. Roads and bridges

2. Police force and court system

3. Military

4. Basic social services to those who CANNOT work.

5. A secure border


Government offices should be minimally compensated, no life long pensions, no free healthcare, more transparency.


Our government is way too bloated and wasteful.


K

[TheMojoPin]

I love it when people assume they would automatically have more money if they didn't pay taxes, as if they wouldn't have to pay for all the privatized versions of the government services no longer provided, especially since you left out things liked schools and the fire department. What about emergency services?

This is also amusing:

Government offices should be minimally compensated, no life long pensions, no free healthcare

Why should government employees not be paid fairly, not receive pensions and not earn healthcare?

[earthbrown]

Why should government employees not be paid fairly, not receive pensions and not earn healthcare?

that was suppose to pertain to elected officials, just did not properly type it.



K

[TheMojoPin]

So with a "minimal" pay system, you want to ensure a totality of the problem that we have now: that our "representative" government is made up of a tiny minority of wealthy elites?

[foodcourtdruide]

So with a "minimal" pay system, you want to ensure a totality of the problem that we have now: that our "representative" government is made up of a tiny minority of wealthy elites?

Libertarianism is such an incomplete thought.

[A.J.]

According to some of the christians that I have talked to, A one world goverment will be one of the triggers for the "Prince of Peace" to come back and kick ass.

Mother fucker better come strapped!

He'll embrace the gloom and walk the night alone.

[CountryBob]

I do not agree.

I think the majority of human beings have an innate desire to help one another, given our penchant for society and companionship.

I think that if they had the means, people would be far more willing to help others.

Yeah tell those fuckin bastards that just broke into my home and stole about everything I owned of value. I have no more hope for humanity.