Brilliant Idea

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brilliant Idea

 

Since Xmas is coming charities are starting to fundraise like crazy. I've decided that in order to support some of my favorite charities, I will institute a mandatory deduction from employees paychecks. Not a lot, maybe like $10 a week, and put that money into a fund used to donate to qualifying charities. What do you think?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Nothing like forcing people

Nothing like forcing people to give to charity. I say go for it, personally I donated roughly $30 today to some guy today who had a gun stuck in his mouth and was beaten and robbed this morning so he could get on a bus and travel 6 hours home and to buy some cloths not covered in blood so he wouldn't have to wear them all the way. Then he he went and ruined it and said god does everything for a reason. Somehow I get the feeling it is illegal though. Cannot be forced to give to the poor no we wouldn't want to eat one less meal at McDonalds would we.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Since

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Since Xmas is coming charities are starting to fundraise like crazy. I've decided that in order to support some of my favorite charities, I will institute a mandatory deduction from employees paychecks. Not a lot, maybe like $10 a week, and put that money into a fund used to donate to qualifying charities. What do you think?

Um for someone who cries about force you certainly show tons of hypocrisy here. Either that or maybe this is a bate to get someone into an argument.

It just amounts to "It's ok when I do it, but if my detractors do the same, it is automatically wrong. "I want my way all the time".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Also select charities that

Also select charities that don't solve problems that eliminate their need. Select charities that create more depedency on your charity. Then next year you'll need to go to $20.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I am against it.... unless I

I am against it.... unless I am one of the charities.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Let me guess, this is what

Let me guess, this is what you believe the government is doing when taxing us. Smiling Am I right?  Aside from the fact that it would be illegal for you to retain any money that has not previously been agreed upon, this doesn't sound like something you would do, it does sound like something that you think the government is doing. Eye-wink

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Since

Beyond Saving wrote:
Since Xmas is coming charities are starting to fundraise like crazy. I've decided that in order to support some of my favorite charities, I will institute a mandatory deduction from employees paychecks. Not a lot, maybe like $10 a week, and put that money into a fund used to donate to qualifying charities. What do you think?

Hopefully they don't mind you giving to RRS.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Since Xmas is coming charities are starting to fundraise like crazy. I've decided that in order to support some of my favorite charities, I will institute a mandatory deduction from employees paychecks. Not a lot, maybe like $10 a week, and put that money into a fund used to donate to qualifying charities. What do you think?

Um for someone who cries about force you certainly show tons of hypocrisy here. Either that or maybe this is a bate to get someone into an argument.

It just amounts to "It's ok when I do it, but if my detractors do the same, it is automatically wrong. "I want my way all the time".

 

C'mon Brian, he's fucking with us to prove a point.  He did a fairly decent job, the only difference being that he was advocating for something not done in our country today (take money from paychecks), and you and I are advocating to repair something that is already done in this country today (take taxes and help society).

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 Ah, Ktulu and Sapient, you

 Ah, Ktulu and Sapient, you ruined my fun I was going to fuck with Brian for a bit.  But on a more serious note, if your initial reaction to an employer actually doing such a thing is negative, why would your reaction be different because it is the government- which arguably uses a lot more force because it is easier to leave one employer for another compared to moving out of the country.

 

We have reached a point in our country where virtually every problem we have is looked at as something that can and should be solved by the federal government, and if it isn't getting fixed the solution is more money. Anyone who speaks up against the federal government being the solution is instantly attacked as uncaring, selfish, greedy etc. What, you don't care about the (insert sympathetic group here). Which is how you get votes that are 95-0 in the Senate because it is political suicide to vote against giving money to veterans even though our government is flat broke. While this particular bill costs very little in the grand scheme of things, all the little shit adds up to be a serious problem.

 

So run yourself through the thought exercise as a self-consistency test. If your employer were to institute such a program, would you think it was wrong? Does the amount coming out matter, so maybe $10 is ok but $50 would be too much? Does the specific cause matter? If you would not be ok with your employer doing so without your express consent, why is it different for the government? If you have no problem with either one, at least you are consistent.

 

To me, the ends do not justify the means. No matter how wonderful a particular charity is, I think funds should be collected through persuasion rather than force. Because whatever charities are most important to you, others have charities that are more important to them. I am inclined to give more to charities that have made a positive influence on my life or on the lives of people I love. Brian supports the lab rescue because it had a positive influence on his life.

 

Are my charities better than his? Or is his better than mine? No. We had different life experiences that led us to support different charities and both play a role in making our country a little bit nicer. Should one of us take money from the other to fund our respective charities? Or pool our money together and fight over how much goes to which charity? I don't think deciding which charity to give money to should be decided by a vote, by a committee or by a central authority. The quality of a particular charity cannot be judged based on its popularity, ability to lobby or its political connections. I think that is obvious on its face.

 

Yet we consistently allow our government to decide what good causes to distribute our money to based on popularity, ability to lobby and political connections. We put our faith in professional politicians who time and again have demonstrated that the only thing they truly care about is getting reelected, claim to "serve" the country while becoming millionaires and generally screw us over. 

 

With Xmas a lot of charities go into full fundraising mode. I would encourage to donate if you are able, but do you due diligence and make sure the charity is actually doing something good and putting a reasonable amount of money towards those who need it in an effective way. If you are unable to do anything financially yourself consider volunteering. The federal government isn't going to swoop in and fix everything. But you can help fix your little corner of the world. If you don't do it, who will?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I would

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would encourage to donate if you are able, but do you due diligence and make sure the charity is actually doing something good and putting a reasonable amount of money towards those who need it in an effective way. If you are unable to do anything financially yourself consider volunteering. The federal government isn't going to swoop in and fix everything. But you can help fix your little corner of the world. If you don't do it, who will?

The new server fundraiser will begin soon, I hope I have your support.  The money is going straight to a server.

You're taking our conversation into an area that causes me to write at length, and I want to try and stay focused on my site building tasks here, sorry.  I'm sure someone else will weigh in.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
What is a union for $5000,

What is a union for $5000, Alex.

I kid of course.

Kind of.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:No

Beyond Saving wrote:

No matter how wonderful a particular charity is, I think funds should be collected through persuasion rather than force.

This is an excellent statement. In fact, I would broaden it and say that no matter how wonderful any idea may seem, funding for it should be collected through persuasion rather than force.

There surely must be some way of voluntarily funding a government. I mean, companies do it all the time (even Microsoft doesn't have a total monopoly).

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No government system can be

No government system can be 100% voluntary and remain sustainable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

blacklight915 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

No matter how wonderful a particular charity is, I think funds should be collected through persuasion rather than force.

This is an excellent statement. In fact, I would broaden it and say that no matter how wonderful any idea may seem, funding for it should be collected through persuasion rather than force.

There surely must be some way of voluntarily funding a government. I mean, companies do it all the time (even Microsoft doesn't have a total monopoly).

 

Ideally all charity should be volunary -- but we don't live in an ideal world.  If conservatives and libertarians don't want their tax dollars going to charity, they should prove to the world that they can sustain society with private charity.  Then their job is to convert liberals into libertarians.  Of course, they would have to convince the liberals that con men should not be prevented and punished. 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Philosophicus wrote:Ideally

Philosophicus wrote:

Ideally all charity should be volunary -- but we don't live in an ideal world.  If conservatives and libertarians don't want their tax dollars going to charity, they should prove to the world that they can sustain society with private charity.  Then their job is to convert liberals into libertarians.

 

What do you think I'm trying to do?

 

Philosophicus wrote:

 Of course, they would have to convince the liberals that con men should not be prevented and punished.  

What does punishing fraud have anything to do with the issue? Libertarianism /= to anarchism, libertarians generally support punishing fraud. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Ah,

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Ah, Ktulu and Sapient, you ruined my fun I was going to fuck with Brian for a bit.  But on a more serious note, if your initial reaction to an employer actually doing such a thing is negative, why would your reaction be different because it is the government- which arguably uses a lot more force because it is easier to leave one employer for another compared to moving out of the country.

 

We have reached a point in our country where virtually every problem we have is looked at as something that can and should be solved by the federal government, and if it isn't getting fixed the solution is more money. Anyone who speaks up against the federal government being the solution is instantly attacked as uncaring, selfish, greedy etc. What, you don't care about the (insert sympathetic group here). Which is how you get votes that are 95-0 in the Senate because it is political suicide to vote against giving money to veterans even though our government is flat broke. While this particular bill costs very little in the grand scheme of things, all the little shit adds up to be a serious problem.

 

So run yourself through the thought exercise as a self-consistency test. If your employer were to institute such a program, would you think it was wrong? Does the amount coming out matter, so maybe $10 is ok but $50 would be too much? Does the specific cause matter? If you would not be ok with your employer doing so without your express consent, why is it different for the government? If you have no problem with either one, at least you are consistent.

 

To me, the ends do not justify the means. No matter how wonderful a particular charity is, I think funds should be collected through persuasion rather than force. Because whatever charities are most important to you, others have charities that are more important to them. I am inclined to give more to charities that have made a positive influence on my life or on the lives of people I love. Brian supports the lab rescue because it had a positive influence on his life.

 

Are my charities better than his? Or is his better than mine? No. We had different life experiences that led us to support different charities and both play a role in making our country a little bit nicer. Should one of us take money from the other to fund our respective charities? Or pool our money together and fight over how much goes to which charity? I don't think deciding which charity to give money to should be decided by a vote, by a committee or by a central authority. The quality of a particular charity cannot be judged based on its popularity, ability to lobby or its political connections. I think that is obvious on its face.

 

Yet we consistently allow our government to decide what good causes to distribute our money to based on popularity, ability to lobby and political connections. We put our faith in professional politicians who time and again have demonstrated that the only thing they truly care about is getting reelected, claim to "serve" the country while becoming millionaires and generally screw us over. 

 

With Xmas a lot of charities go into full fundraising mode. I would encourage to donate if you are able, but do you due diligence and make sure the charity is actually doing something good and putting a reasonable amount of money towards those who need it in an effective way. If you are unable to do anything financially yourself consider volunteering. The federal government isn't going to swoop in and fix everything. But you can help fix your little corner of the world. If you don't do it, who will?

You got me. My shoe was untied and you flicked my nose. I took the bait.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

Ideally all charity should be volunary -- but we don't live in an ideal world.  If conservatives and libertarians don't want their tax dollars going to charity, they should prove to the world that they can sustain society with private charity.  Then their job is to convert liberals into libertarians.

I don't actually pay any taxes yet. However, I am upset my parents' money is funding wars, massive corporate bailouts, the war on drugs, the federal department of education, farm subsidies passed during the Great Depression, oil subsidies passed in the late 1800's, useless gun control laws (not actually sure if there are useful gun control laws), and all manner of other ineffective laws and government agencies that I don't know about.

As long as useless laws and agencies benefit a person or group with significant political power, they will be quite difficult to repeal.

The Obamacare bill prevented me from being taken off my dad's company health insurance. However, if repealing said bill would benefit people in this country, I would support a vote to repeal it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What do you think I'm trying to do?

Indeed, I am also trying to show people that a libertarian and/or voluntaryist government/society is the best choice.

Of course, voluntaryism advocates living under whatever form of government you want to--including no government at all. This makes it somewhat circular, as you can't not want to live under the form of government you want to live under. In this case, the key is just getting people to allow each other to do this.

Philosophicus wrote:

Of course, they would have to convince the liberals that con men should not be prevented and punished.

I mean, if you spread the word about a con man, he won't be able to con people anymore. Isn't that how most people avoid getting conned anyway?

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

blacklight915 wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Of course, [libertarians and conservatives] would have to convince the liberals that con men should not be prevented and punished.

I mean, if you spread the word about a con man, he won't be able to con people anymore. Isn't that how most people avoid getting conned anyway? 

Laws help to prevent and punish con men.  Spreading the word helps, but it's not enough -- there's always another sucker around the corner.  There are lots of non-governmental strategies that work and should be used, like educating consumers and potential victims; but regulation is necessary.

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Beyond Saving wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Ideally all charity should be volunary -- but we don't live in an ideal world.  If conservatives and libertarians don't want their tax dollars going to charity, they should prove to the world that they can sustain society with private charity.  Then their job is to convert liberals into libertarians.

 

What do you think I'm trying to do?

Do you think all charity will eventually be privatized?  If so, how long do you think it will take?  (Or maybe you think socialism will completely take over.) 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Of course, they would have to convince the liberals that con men should not be prevented and punished.  

What does punishing fraud have anything to do with the issue? Libertarianism /= to anarchism, libertarians generally support punishing fraud. 

It was a related point.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Indeed,

blacklight915 wrote:

Indeed, I am also trying to show people that a libertarian and/or voluntaryist government/society is the best choice.

How do you define your particular brand of libertarianism?

I don't believe libertarianism is rational. We live on a finite sized planet. So we are necessarily forced to compete for limited resources and find a way to share without killing each other. The liberties you have restrict the liberty of others. So there has to be a central authority that restricts everyone's liberties to some extent to keep the peace. Most people that call themselves libertarians are highly hypocritical, they're OK with restricting the liberty of others if it benefits themselves. Liberty is for what they want.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:How do you define

EXC wrote:

How do you define your particular brand of libertarianism?

I don't believe libertarianism is rational. We live on a finite sized planet. So we are necessarily forced to compete for limited resources and find a way to share without killing each other. The liberties you have restrict the liberty of others. So there has to be a central authority that restricts everyone's liberties to some extent to keep the peace. Most people that call themselves libertarians are highly hypocritical, they're OK with restricting the liberty of others if it benefits themselves. Liberty is for what they want.

I try to avoid attaching myself to a particular philosophy. It makes it more difficult for me to acknowledge and understand both people's objections to it and any flaws I may find. That said, the libertarians I know advocate protecting the rights of everyone, even those they disagree with. They only support violence if used in defense of yourself, someone else, or your property. In this case, I think "property" refers to physical things you have bought and own (land, house, car, tv, etc.). The only birthright I know they advocate is the ownership of yourself and the "fruits of your labor".

Here are two few definitions from the wikipedia article "Libertarianism":

Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize individual libertycontractualismvoluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on this libertarians advocate small or no government power.

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Laws

Philosophicus wrote:

Laws help to prevent and punish con men.  Spreading the word helps, but it's not enough -- there's always another sucker around the corner.  There are lots of non-governmental strategies that work and should be used, like educating consumers and potential victims; but regulation is necessary.

I suppose... I mean, I found out about phishing scams by reading Consumer Reports and talking with my dad. The bank my family uses also sent its customers several emails about how to identify them. The laws only really come into play after someone is caught. Of course, punishments/penalties for fraud should have some sort of deterrent effect. But laws detailing punishments for crimes are different from regulations. It's very difficult for any agency to stop crime before it happens. Rather than attempting to police everyone all the time, the best way to stop crime is to educate/empower potential victims. Once a criminal is caught, the goal is to get him/her to not commit the crime again. This is all assuming that the crime is something that harms other people, not just something that is illegal.

 

Philosophicus wrote:

Do you think all charity will eventually be privatized?

It shouldn't be too difficult. I mean, aren't most charities already voluntarily run and funded?

Also, involuntary/mandated charity is kind of an odd concept...

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Philosophicus wrote:Beyond

Philosophicus wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Ideally all charity should be volunary -- but we don't live in an ideal world.  If conservatives and libertarians don't want their tax dollars going to charity, they should prove to the world that they can sustain society with private charity.  Then their job is to convert liberals into libertarians.

 

What do you think I'm trying to do?

Do you think all charity will eventually be privatized?  If so, how long do you think it will take?  (Or maybe you think socialism will completely take over.) 

 

No I am quite sure that my side is going to lose until our government manages to utterly destroy our economy and becomes completely incapable of providing any assistance to anyone. I have seen little indication that most Americans have any desire for liberty. They seem quite willing to surrender liberty in exchange for an illusion of security. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


TheFallenAngel
TheFallenAngel's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-01-13
User is offlineOffline
If this is some kind of a

If this is some kind of a campaign against taxation i'm in!


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:No I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

No I am quite sure that my side is going to lose until our government manages to utterly destroy our economy and becomes completely incapable of providing any assistance to anyone. I have seen little indication that most Americans have any desire for liberty. They seem quite willing to surrender liberty in exchange for an illusion of security.

Most still may not, but I think the movement is growing. Ron Paul and his supporters are quite pro-liberty; there's also the Free State Project in New Hampshire; as well as Students For Liberty (SFL) and Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). The last two started as student groups, but I believe anyone can join and participate. There's also the CATO Institute--a large libertarian think-tank organisation--and blazingtruth.com--a much smaller website run by a former Christian.

 

Still, though, I never thought the US federal government would be able to pass a law legalizing indefinite detention without trial for anyone for any reason...

I heard there were some restrictions on it, but I doubt those will last long if the government decides to use that law...

I mean, come on! The US government is NOT supposed to be a dictatorship or an authoritarian regime! A country cannot be 'free' with a law like that on the books; it's just total bullshit!!