I'm pretty confident that Isolationism no worky-worky, but Interventionism has also been shown to be kinda bust.
What to do?
...you're being downright deceitful.
Are you giving me the Full Damn_Registrars here?
I may have ventured into occasional hyperbole for comic effect, sir, but Let Me Be Perfectly Clear: I'm not wasting anyone's time by being less than honest about anything. So if you're accusing me of being a fear merchant, we can cease communications.
If you're making a general point about the full spectrum of "christianity", then sure: you can trivially find any example of any perversion under the sun.
Accusing me of being a fear merchant is exactly the same thing as saying that all Muslims are terrorists, based upon the madness of a fraction of the lot.
"It'll be like Windows 3.0 meets the Trinity!" said Bob.
For his Soviet broom
On which he goes: "Zoom!"
While plotting your doom
But he no Burma Shave
Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.
To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.
Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?
Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.
Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.
Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.
Nobody is stealing your money - you're paying taxes.
- wrong, income taxes are legalised theft of life, creativity, time on this planet. It is slavery imposed by the violence of the collective on behalf of those, who perceive it to be to their advantage, whether it is so or not and against those, who are in a minority. This is how income taxes started in USA in the first place, top 2% of people were forced to be paid up to 7% of their income in taxes so that the vast majority wouldn't have to pay alcohol and some import taxes anymore (of-course the result is that everybody pays insane amounts of taxes, both on income side and on consumption).
The rest of us will recognize your right to retain the rest of your property if you recognize your responsibility to help care for the indigent
- wrong, nobody has any responsibilities towards anybody unless they are your children, then you have responsibility to them.
If you don't do your part, then why should I recognize that you have any right to own property at all?
- because it is in your best interest to recognise that if I cannot own property, then neither can you.
That's what society used to be: very few people owned any property, everybody belonged to the select few, who had the so called 'birth right' to it. You couldn't earn property, you could only be born into it or be given it by somebody who was born into it.
Meritocracy is a much more fair system to everybody, except for those, who lost that birth right of-course.
But, call it theft if you like. It really doesn't change the fact that you have no choice but to comply.
- wrong. I do not comply, I use the 5 flag strategy to ensure that something like you has a very limited access to my property.
I imagine that you'd be a little less lofty in your views if you had one of those irresponsible parents. Heck, some kids don't have any parents/family at all.
The fact is that all the property/etc you've worked so hard to obtain is only yours as the result of you having been born to parents who raised you well, and who gave you genes that allow you to support yourself.
- parents, fine. That is none of anybody's business.
What you are born with physically is of nobody's business.
Absent either of those, and especially absent the latter, you'd be as well-off as an ape that shares 98% of your genetics.
- I am yet to see an ape that is forced to pay income taxes.
As a result, I certainly have no moral issues with requiring anybody with the ability to take care of themselves to spend some of their effort taking care of others, using force if they do not wish to do so.
- irrelevant what you have or have no moral issues with. I already know what your 'morality' is. Socialist/Marxis morality is violence and theft, nothing else. I have no qualms and no doubts about your level of 'morality' and thus I do what I can to avoid such as yourself.
Your claim that I am a 'terrible human being' noted. So what does that make you given the fact that your claim is based on my comment, which states that no human should be forced to be a slave to another human by anybody, especially by the violent power of the state?
What does that make you, a 'better' human being, to want to use the violent power of the state to force people to give up portion of their live involuntarily for any supposed benefit of anybody at all or for any reason whatsoever for that matter?
At the very minimum it makes your position extremely inconsistent within itself, claiming that being what you are a 'better' comparing to what I am, while declaring that people need to be forced by violence (that is what state is - violence), subjugated to the will of the collective and not be allowed to decide how to control their own lives?
Then again, no socialist ideas are consistent within themselves. The so called 'green' socialists are of the opinion that people are destroying the planet. They want to use the violent power of the state to subjugate the individuals, to turn their productivity to the state, so that the state would decide what to do with it, supposedly for the benefit of the environment somehow (while the worst damage to the environment comes from the operation of the state, nuclear disasters, wars, pollution). They do not see the inconsistency of their ideas at all. They want the state to control the resources, but obviously for the state to do so, it needs to throw bones to the subjects, the bones being subsidies.
So tax those, who are productive, steal their productivity (lives, time on this planet, creativity) and allow the state to subsidise others? How is that consistent with the 'green' ideology, which is of the opinion that human activities cause ecological problems on this planet? They would be consistent if they in fact decided to completely remove subsidies, we get more of what we subsidise.
Providing subsidies causes an influx in births, those who live on subsidies do not have to care as much how to provide for the offspring, their birth rates are higher. It is an inconsistent position to provide for more subsidies from those, who already control their own birth rates to those, who will not if given subsidies.
But of-course socialist positions are never consistent.
As a side note, I have formed my opinions on this matter over 30 years ago, I only read Ayn Rand's novels out of curiosity maybe 2 or 3 years ago, I don't need anybody to form my opinions for me, which is, by the way, why I am an individual, not an ant in a colony.