I am a socialist, taking gov. money for school

[0zzy]

I guess I am a hypocrite because, despite being against socialism, I will be taking a government money to go to college.

My dad is in the military and can transfer his education benefits over to me under the post9/11 GI Bill, meaning I can use...

$1000 book stipend
$13,338 basic allowance for housing

Also, in the state of California if you are a dependent of a military parent with 0% disability, you can get your tuition/fees waived which is a total of...

$4,662 per year.

Meaning for my remaining two years of college I could, in essence, collect around...

$38,000 in benefits for 2 years
(or more, if I decided to get a double major!)

That sounds pretty damn socialist to me. It is an apple that was seen in the Garden of Eden, and I'm about to screw all of mankind right now by getting kicked out.

Can someone tell me, will I be getting banned after revealing this? And can someone convince me that going in debt by getting now-defunct-loans would be a better choice? (And aren't those loans run by the government mostly? or the now failed banks?)

:X

[BamaFanNKy]

Eh. My advice:
YouTube - Steve Miller Band - Take The Money And Run (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZwLsvO6YTw)

[0zzy]

Eh. My advice:
YouTube - Steve Miller Band - Take The Money And Run (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZwLsvO6YTw)

ROFL.

funny thing is, the Steve Miller Band just played yesterday at the school I am going to - Cal State Fullerton.
http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/miller-235479-band-center.html

THIS MUST BE A SIGN!

[brandon]

Don't worry about it. The system is already so fucked that there is no reason to feel bad about this. As long as you are a productive member of society after college you will pay it all back plus tons extra.

[TCE]

The government, through allowing prices for college to skyrocket because of their guaranteeing loans (and the Fed), has, unfortunately, made it necessary for almost everyone to take out a loan. Don't worry, the way this is headed, you'll be paying them back in worthless paper.

[silus]

Employment offers benefits. How is that socialist?

[BamaFanNKy]

ROFL.

funny thing is, the Steve Miller Band just played yesterday at the school I am going to - Cal State Fullerton.
http://www.ocregister.com/entertainment/miller-235479-band-center.html

THIS MUST BE A SIGN!

Cal State Fullerton? You want to serve Pizzas for the rest of your life? (Jim Rome Joke)

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Shit, unless your parents are freakin loaded, you pretty much have no choice but to take their money. Just what they wanted. Inflate the prices in the market place so you have to depend on them.

Eh, fuk it....Like my man said above. Take the money and run :)

[squarepusher]

Employment offers benefits. How is that socialist?

you and me aren't forced to pay for it

[dgr]

Look at it as an inherititance, besides you Dad really EARN IT

[Natalie]

My friend who is YAL with me is also getting money from the govt to pay for school. The way I see it, you're going to end up giving them so much money in taxes for the rest of your life, that it's really like you're just getting a little of your money back. So don't worry about it.

[muzzled dogg]

omg sellout

[0zzy]

btw I haven't used any of this money yet and not even sure how it all works. I'm pretty sure what I stated is pretty much what will happen though.

And glad to see only one sellout comment so far! :D

Btw, does anybody else do this?

And if you had this much money, would you go to school full time and instead of getting a part time job (which I have now) would rather invest in your skill (for future employment)/hobbies/clubs/internships (they have a YAL club on campus).

[__27__]

Your father signed a contract, one which he lived up to, and one which he should expect his counterpart to live up to. As part of that contract he was promised education benefits, and those benefits were transferable to his children. If you changed the other party in the contract from FedGov to ANY private firm no one would give two shakes, and they shouldn't about this either. Contractually negotiated employment benefits are WHOLLY different than handouts and welfare (wealth redistribution).


I am a medically retired Iraq vet on post 9/11 GI. If you have no expenses I think it's plenty of money to get you by. I on the other hand have a mortgage and a family, so I still have to work, and a lot. School shouldn't be half-assed, get in there and take 15-18 each semester and immerse yourself in learning your craft. I would advise against work if you can subside on the GI money, focus all your efforts on schooling while leaving your downtime for reading and campus activity. YAL is a great group, I am a member at my school. I am also President of the Student Veteran's Organization on our campus. It's a long way from you, but if your major is offered up here at St. Cloud State in Minnesota I'd be happy to bring you in and show you campus!

[jack555]

You are not being a hypocrite. Just because you want a libertarian government does not mean you live in one. The reality is you live in a partly socialized nation. You and your family have/will payed/pay huge somes of money to the government against your will. Take back every penny you can get.

[RideTheDirt]

meh, I don't blame you man! If people are upset about giving away free $$$$$ then they should...stop giving away free money!


You and your family have/will payed/pay huge somes of money to the government against your will. Take back every penny you can get.

this is relevant to my post.

[Jeros]

What you are describing is absolutely socialist. If you had the choice to opt out of the system, it would be hypocritical for you to take anything from the system. Since you are forced to participate in the system and support the system, if you wish for anything other than vagrancy, you are required on some level to practice socialism. Using that money is no different than driving on the roads, calling the fire department, or paying your taxes.

Another way to look at it is that material wealth is taken from you through a coercive authority that some group of people voted into existence, which is a fancy way of saying a group of criminals stole from you. If you have the opportunity to take back what is your property, does it matter what methods are used?

Another way to look at it is through the legitimate argument that reducing government spending is politically unacceptable and the system will continue until it crashes and the US government is bankrupt. If the crash is inevitable, and your accepting of benefits accelerates the timing of this crash, aren't you just utilizing another tool help end the corrupt system.

If you couldn't tell, I may be a little biased as I am also currently receiving GI Bill benefits.

[0zzy]

Your father signed a contract, one which he lived up to, and one which he should expect his counterpart to live up to. As part of that contract he was promised education benefits, and those benefits were transferable to his children. If you changed the other party in the contract from FedGov to ANY private firm no one would give two shakes, and they shouldn't about this either. Contractually negotiated employment benefits are WHOLLY different than handouts and welfare (wealth redistribution).


I am a medically retired Iraq vet on post 9/11 GI. If you have no expenses I think it's plenty of money to get you by. I on the other hand have a mortgage and a family, so I still have to work, and a lot. School shouldn't be half-assed, get in there and take 15-18 each semester and immerse yourself in learning your craft. I would advise against work if you can subside on the GI money, focus all your efforts on schooling while leaving your downtime for reading and campus activity. YAL is a great group, I am a member at my school. I am also President of the Student Veteran's Organization on our campus. It's a long way from you, but if your major is offered up here at St. Cloud State in Minnesota I'd be happy to bring you in and show you campus!

I like this post :). And I would definitely like to take up to 18 classes but it's maxed out at 16 at the moment due to budget cuts. No worries though, 5 classes is good enough :D.

And I plan on majoring in
Business Administration with a concentration in Entertainment/Tourism Management
with a minor in
Radio-Television-Film

So hopefully I can effect change on the inside through media (either TV or help campaign for liberty ? or movies or something).



If you couldn't tell, I may be a little biased as I am also currently receiving GI Bill benefits.
As a veteran or dependent? Just wondering if what I described is really accurate cause it's almost too good to be true (since it was my dad who joined the force not me).

[__27__]

What you are describing is absolutely socialist. If you had the choice to opt out of the system, it would be hypocritical for you to take anything from the system. Since you are forced to participate in the system and support the system, if you wish for anything other than vagrancy, you are required on some level to practice socialism. Using that money is no different than driving on the roads, calling the fire department, or paying your taxes.

Another way to look at it is that material wealth is taken from you through a coercive authority that some group of people voted into existence, which is a fancy way of saying a group of criminals stole from you. If you have the opportunity to take back what is your property, does it matter what methods are used?

Another way to look at it is through the legitimate argument that reducing government spending is politically unacceptable and the system will continue until it crashes and the US government is bankrupt. If the crash is inevitable, and your accepting of benefits accelerates the timing of this crash, aren't you just utilizing another tool help end the corrupt system.

If you couldn't tell, I may be a little biased as I am also currently receiving GI Bill benefits.

Wrong. Contractually negotiated employment benefits =/= socialism.


Again, if his dad worked for FedEx and they agreed in their contract they would pay him education benefits, and he could transfer those benefits to his children, you would call that socialism??? He and an employer agreed to a contract, he (the employee) lived up to his end of the contract, the employer needs to live up to their end.

This is NOT government saying "Hey, you look poor, here take this money for school", this is a CONTRACTUALLY NEGOTIATED EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT. Unless you believe contracts are socialist, I fail to see the disconnect.

[0zzy]

Wrong. Contractually negotiated employment benefits =/= socialism.


Again, if his dad worked for FedEx and they agreed in their contract they would pay him education benefits, and he could transfer those benefits to his children, you would call that socialism??? He and an employer agreed to a contract, he (the employee) lived up to his end of the contract, the employer needs to live up to their end.

This is NOT government saying "Hey, you look poor, here take this money for school", this is a CONTRACTUALLY NEGOTIATED EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT. Unless you believe contracts are socialist, I fail to see the disconnect.

He may take the viewpoint that all employment contracts with the government are considered socialist, as we have socialized our national defense. Or something. I'm not sure.

But at least my dad joined the military rather than, something less productive which should be abolished anyways :X. If there is one thing a country needs it's a strong military (not all whom are soldiers, my dad isn't).

[Jeros]

I like this post :). And I would definitely like to take up to 18 classes but it's maxed out at 16 at the moment due to budget cuts. No worries though, 5 classes is good enough :D.

And I plan on majoring in
Business Administration with a concentration in Entertainment/Tourism Management
with a minor in
Radio-Television-Film

So hopefully I can effect change on the inside through media (either TV or help campaign for liberty ? or movies or something).

Don't do it! I am a business major at UW. It is an almost worthless degree. The professors are basically teaching children how not to be children, along with a bunch of mostly useless vocabulary. Some of the material I have dealt with also happened to be covered in the fourth grade. Get a Mechanical Engineering degree instead!

The only reason the degree isn't completely worthless is because most employers use it as a screening tool. I am sort of viewing my education as a hedge against whether TSHTF. If hiring practices miraculously don't change over the next decade, your business degree might still be worth something.

I am probably being too negative though. Don't let it affect your decision.

[Jeros]

Wrong. Contractually negotiated employment benefits =/= socialism.


Again, if his dad worked for FedEx and they agreed in their contract they would pay him education benefits, and he could transfer those benefits to his children, you would call that socialism??? He and an employer agreed to a contract, he (the employee) lived up to his end of the contract, the employer needs to live up to their end.

This is NOT government saying "Hey, you look poor, here take this money for school", this is a CONTRACTUALLY NEGOTIATED EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT. Unless you believe contracts are socialist, I fail to see the disconnect.

Sorry guy. It doesn't matter how you spin it. A contract with a socialist institution is still socialist agreement. The argument has nothing to do with contracts among private parties.

Don't try to turn the argument into a discussion about contracting. It is a discussion about associating with socialism. Socialist institutions also contract among each other, so whether or not a contract is present in some association has nothing to do with determining the practice of socialism.

[0zzy]

Don't do it! I am a business major at UW. It is an almost worthless degree. The professors are basically teaching children how not to be children, along with a bunch of mostly useless vocabulary. Some of the material I have dealt with also happened to be covered in the fourth grade. Get a Mechanical Engineering degree instead!

The only reason the degree isn't completely worthless is because most employers use it as a screening tool. I am sort of viewing my education as a hedge against whether TSHTF. If hiring practices miraculously don't change over the next decade, your business degree might still be worth something.

I am probably being too negative though. Don't let it affect your decision.

I'll try not too hah :). I tried to put two of my interest (business+media) together with that major. They have a lot of connections with Disney and Paramount and other studios too, and having a business degree in entertainment management I think could help me get in the door.

Originally I wanted to do a double major in that and radio-television-film (learn how to edit, shoot, etc. which is a skill that can easily give you some cash if proficient enough), but I would have to extend beyond a 4-year plan for college which I don't want to do.

Besides, I'm too dumb to use my brain for something like engineering (and I don't think I'd be passionate about it either.)

[squarepusher]

Don't do it! I am a business major at UW. It is an almost worthless degree. The professors are basically teaching children how not to be children, along with a bunch of mostly useless vocabulary. Some of the material I have dealt with also happened to be covered in the fourth grade. Get a Mechanical Engineering degree instead!

The only reason the degree isn't completely worthless is because most employers use it as a screening tool. I am sort of viewing my education as a hedge against whether TSHTF. If hiring practices miraculously don't change over the next decade, your business degree might still be worth something.

I am probably being too negative though. Don't let it affect your decision.

lol'd to that bold part

the only time i took government money, was when i was on unemployment, and it was for about 4 weeks.

[Roxi]

who cares... most of the taxpayers you are taking money from voted for obama anyway.... so as long as you dedicate your life to liberty causes then it all evens out :)

[Jeros]

I'll try not too hah :). I tried to put two of my interest (business+media) together with that major. They have a lot of connections with Disney and Paramount and other studios too, and having a business degree in entertainment management I think could help me get in the door.

Originally I wanted to do a double major in that and radio-television-film (learn how to edit, shoot, etc. which is a skill that can easily give you some cash if proficient enough), but I would have to extend beyond a 4-year plan for college which I don't want to do.

Besides, I'm too dumb to use my brain for something like engineering (and I don't think I'd be passionate about it either.)

Passion is about all any competent person really needs to be successful in any marketable industry, which is also why I don't feel too depressed about my degree.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Honestly, take all the money you want from the gov't. As bad as it sounds, I would rather it go towards educating a liberty minded person rather than one of the sheeple. And hey, the more money we get flying around, the quicker the dollar goes, the quicker my gold goes up :)

[squarepusher]

Honestly, take all the money you want from the gov't. As bad as it sounds, I would rather it go towards educating a liberty minded person rather than one of the sheeple. And hey, the more money we get flying around, the quicker the dollar goes, the quicker my gold goes up :)

this is why I support single payer health care and the wars abroad.

[purplechoe]

http://www.kneedeepinthehooah.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/newsweek-socialist-cover.jpg

I guess you didn't get the memo...

[hugolp]

My answer to this is allways: "I will stop using goverment services when the goverment stops forcing me to pay them. As long as I am paying the goverment I will use its services".

[nobody's_hero]

I'm in the same boat as the O.P. I've thought about it many times, and there've been times I wanted to go down to the financial aid office and tell them, "I don't want your effin welfare!" The state of Georgia has a HOPE (I forget what the acronym stands for) program which funds education from the state lottery, so at least that's voluntary. But after being exposed to Dr. Paul's line of thinking, I know see that programs like the Federal PELL grant are socialist in nature. I don't try to justify it anymore, but I am looking for ways to improve the system to get the government separated from education.

Sadly, I'm under a lot of pressure from my family to get a degree.

So, I'm going to make it up to you guys. I'm going to go ahead and finish my degree (nursing, provided I can get accepted into the program), then I'm going to be one of those healthcare workers who speaks out against federally managed healthcare (because you seem to have more credibility as a healthcare worker speaking out against this rediculous healthcare plan, and an 'average joe who knows nothing about the health system.'). Of course, they don't listen to Doctor Ron Paul, but I think this will change when the healthcare bill is passed and the damage becomes apparent.

Honestly, my interest is more in politics. It's not uncommon for me to log in to my online class and then drift away to catch up on the latest rEVOLution news. It's a bad habit, perhaps, but I can't help it. :D

[constituent]

Just do it. No apologies.

Be young, have fun. Eat, drink, be merry. All that good stuff.

You said you've only got two years left? Squeeze every last drop of life out of 'em that you can.

[KCIndy]

Honestly, take all the money you want from the gov't. As bad as it sounds, I would rather it go towards educating a liberty minded person rather than one of the sheeple.

This.

I (well, we - my wife and I file jointly) got BENT OVER THE BARREL this year by the IRS. If I'm going to lose a big chunk of my hard earned money, I would like to think that at least some of it is going to educate one of the "good guys" who cares about freedom and liberty.

Take the money, learn all you can, then once you get out, start kickin' ass. If anyone criticizes you, remind them of how much money you've already paid into the system, and how much MORE money you're going to lose once you start making the big bucks.

You're perfectly entitled to get back some of your own.

[angelatc]

My friend who is YAL with me is also getting money from the govt to pay for school. The way I see it, you're going to end up giving them so much money in taxes for the rest of your life, that it's really like you're just getting a little of your money back. So don't worry about it.

That's the mindset that got us were we are today. How many college students will vote for a person who promises no more easy loans for school?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I guess I am a hypocrite because, despite being against socialism, I will be taking a government money to go to college.

My dad is in the military and can transfer his education benefits over to me under the post9/11 GI Bill, meaning I can use...

$1000 book stipend
$13,338 basic allowance for housing

Also, in the state of California if you are a dependent of a military parent with 0% disability, you can get your tuition/fees waived which is a total of...

$4,662 per year.

Meaning for my remaining two years of college I could, in essence, collect around...

$38,000 in benefits for 2 years
(or more, if I decided to get a double major!)

That sounds pretty damn socialist to me. It is an apple that was seen in the Garden of Eden, and I'm about to screw all of mankind right now by getting kicked out.

Can someone tell me, will I be getting banned after revealing this? And can someone convince me that going in debt by getting now-defunct-loans would be a better choice? (And aren't those loans run by the government mostly? or the now failed banks?)

:X

Congratulations, I think you have sensed that through the legislation of official legal precedence, you have been deemed an official member of a new American aristocracy set up against the Civil Purpose of the people. Of course, the only draw back to this high position is that you are no longer a pure member of "We the people . . .."
I recommend that you give back what has been falsely awarded to you, forfeit your social security, and live in the shambles.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's the mindset that got us were we are today. How many college students will vote for a person who promises no more easy loans for school?

Yes, and that is the best you can get when you do things outside of recognizing the Truth. The true solution is and has always been the American Movement outside of the petty campaigns back towards the self evident and unalienable Truth. This natural law establishes the Truth as sufficient while it holds those in power under the penalty of God's judgement.
Don't care about God? Then who cares about the governed and their government?

[andrewh817]

You're living in a debt based socialized system. If you want to go to college, either you have to be rich, in debt yourself, or drive the taxpayer deeper into debt...... not great options for someone who wants to further their education. As long as you're sure your degree will be worth anything after graduating, do what you feel is best.

[angelatc]

Yes, and that is the best you can get when you do things outside of recognizing the Truth. The true solution is and has always been the American Movement outside of the petty campaigns back towards the self evident and unalienable Truth. This natural law establishes the Truth as sufficient while it holds those in power under the penalty of God's judgement.
Don't care about God? Then who cares about the governed and their government?

People always vote for their own best interests. All the politicians need to do is to tell them that their best interests lie in government help.

It's almost hypocritical to take it if you already know that it's most definitely *not* in your best long term interests to take it.

Although I do believe that the military benefits are a different topic - that's part of a contract in exchange for services.

[angelatc]

You're living in a debt based socialized system. If you want to go to college, either you have to be rich, in debt yourself, or drive the taxpayer deeper into debt...... not great options for someone who wants to further their education. As long as you're sure your degree will be worth anything after graduating, do what you feel is best.

That's not true either. There is a class of people who actually work their way through college, paying cash up front. But it is considered somewhat of an anachronism in today's instant gratification society.

[dannno]

Your dad signed a contract based on those conditions for employment. He has worked hard for them. While our military provides no real benefit in what they are doing, they are working hard and taking time out of their lives to do something which they believe is helping society.. and the people we are voting into office seem to think so too.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

People always vote for their own best interests. All the politicians need to do is to tell them that their best interests lie in government help.

It's almost hypocritical to take it if you already know that it's most definitely *not* in your best long term interests to take it.

Although I do believe that the military benefits are a different topic - that's part of a contract in exchange for services.

We hold these things (narrowing down to the ultimate political truth) to be self evident that "people always vote for their own best interests."
Self evident means that we don't need the explanation of an expert while unalienable means that it narrows down beyond the partisan mind to the bipartisan soul, or conscience, or, as many like to say, to the very heart.
So, I don't need to be condescending by explaining to you what you already know to be true in your heart. As the Truth cannot ever be destroyed, in your heart you know the Truth.

[ARealConservative]

we all are.

Because I have kids and live in the midwest where earnings are much lower then elsewhere, I don't really pay much of anything in federal tax - outside of SS and Medicare. What I would pay, I have allowances for because of mortgage interest and all the other bullshit loopholes put in place to ingratiate myself with my dear leaders.

That's partly why the system is so messed up. I'm a guy making a pretty decent living for my locale, my government is 12 trillion in debt and playing superman around the globe and maintaining a decent infrastructure at home, and I don't have to pay? Obama even promised I would not see a single dollar in tax increases.

This is why we are doomed though. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but that's what we have been doing for decades and nobody is willing to give up cake.

They have it partially figured out. Most of us have our cake and love our cake. They can take it from us at any time, for any reason they make up, but it happens to so few of us that we ignore that part. Why question that part, you aren't supposed to have it and eat it anyway, but they figured out a way!

This forum knows the cake is going to run out because everybody is having way too much cake. I suggest you eat as much of that cake as they give you and use the savings to store smarter foods for later.

[roho76]

I guess I am a hypocrite because, despite being against socialism, I will be taking a government money to go to college.

My dad is in the military and can transfer his education benefits over to me under the post9/11 GI Bill, meaning I can use...

$1000 book stipend
$13,338 basic allowance for housing

Also, in the state of California if you are a dependent of a military parent with 0% disability, you can get your tuition/fees waived which is a total of...

$4,662 per year.

Meaning for my remaining two years of college I could, in essence, collect around...

$38,000 in benefits for 2 years
(or more, if I decided to get a double major!)

That sounds pretty damn socialist to me. It is an apple that was seen in the Garden of Eden, and I'm about to screw all of mankind right now by getting kicked out.

Can someone tell me, will I be getting banned after revealing this? And can someone convince me that going in debt by getting now-defunct-loans would be a better choice? (And aren't those loans run by the government mostly? or the now failed banks?)

:X

What do you want to do? Unless your going to become a doctor or a lawyer I would say screw it. Start making money now.

What I mean to say is you could spend the next two years of your life learning your social security number and getting free visa card T-shirts or start building who you are today. It was my experience that college didn't teach me anything I couldn't have learned on my own. Heck, go to iTunes U and start studying from some of the most esteemed colleges in the world. I am learning how to make iPhone apps from Stanford University for free. Hows that for getting back at a socialist institution? The only thing I don't get is a piece of paper and a hole of a debt burden (which is not your concern). I don't know, maybe it's not for everyone but I think college is overrated, way to expensive, and possibly the worst possible environment to get an education. I found it to basically be an extension of high school without parental involvement.

I went to school for marketing and I am a robot programmer for the auto industry I don't even know why I went to school in the first place.

[squarepusher]

What do you want to do? Unless your going to become a doctor or a lawyer I would say screw it. Start making money now.

What I mean to say is you could spend the next two years of your life learning your social security number and getting free visa card T-shirts or start building who you are today. It was my experience that college didn't teach me anything I couldn't have learned on my own. Heck, go to iTunes U and start studying from some of the most esteemed colleges in the world. I am learning how to make iPhone apps from Stanford University for free. Hows that for getting back at a socialist institution? The only thing I don't get is a piece of paper and a hole of a debt burden (which is not your concern). I don't know, maybe it's not for everyone but I think college is overrated, way to expensive, and possibly the worst possible environment to get an education. I found it to basically be an extension of high school without parental involvement.

I went to school for marketing and I am a robot programmer for the auto industry I don't even know why I went to school in the first place.

boom

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Your dad signed a contract based on those conditions for employment. He has worked hard for them. While our military provides no real benefit in what they are doing, they are working hard and taking time out of their lives to do something which they believe is helping society.. and the people we are voting into office seem to think so too.

But his dad is not a member of the people's militia, something unofficial we are all born into by Civil Purpose, but he is employed by legal precedence as a member of the military deployed by Necessary Tyranny: the officially deemed American aristocracy established by the U.S. Founding Fathers to serve the people.
In other words, I won't be penalized for choosing to forfeit what I've been awarded by the necessary tyranny (United States government).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What do you want to do? Unless your going to become a doctor or a lawyer I would say screw it. Start making money now.

What I mean to say is you could spend the next two years of your life learning your social security number and getting free visa card T-shirts or start building who you are today. It was my experience that college didn't teach me anything I couldn't have learned on my own. Heck, go to iTunes U and start studying from some of the most esteemed colleges in the world. I am learning how to make iPhone apps from Stanford University for free. Hows that for getting back at a socialist institution? The only thing I don't get is a piece of paper and a hole of a debt burden (which is not your concern). I don't know, maybe it's not for everyone but I think college is overrated, way to expensive, and possibly the worst possible environment to get an education. I found it to basically be an extension of high school without parental involvement.

I went to school for marketing and I am a robot programmer for the auto industry I don't even know why I went to school in the first place.

As a lot of people became millionaires with just a second grade education, we don't go to school to learn how to make money but how to learn how to draw social lines. We certainly don't know by the process of learning how to govern ourselves as it was by training that tyranny taught its youth how to take its rightful place on the throne. It wasn't a matter of the process of learning back then but training as it was believed that the minds of the children of subserviants weren't able to be advanced by teaching. Learning was an unknown.
So, because of my education, I have learned how to draw a social distinction between what was once training by way of teaching and what is now learning by way of teaching.

[Elwar]

The last socialist we hang shall be the one who gave us the rope.

[Old Ducker]

Look at it as an inherititance, besides you Dad really EARN IT

Bullshit. His dad was paid for his time serving the empire. I want a refund.

As for the OP, this is a moral dilemma all libertarians face. I'm not going to state what my decisions are and to be totallly honest, I don't know what they will be in the future (assuming there is one). I will state one couple's choice.

Twenty five years ago I worked for a small company. Our accountant was an elderly woman with mild parkinson's disease. I don't recall exactly what her age was, probably around 70. She worked because her and her husband refused to accept Social Security and Medicare, as a matter of principle. Then and now, I have a ton of respect for that woman.

There are people who talk, and there are people who act. Look in the mirror and ask yourself which applies to you.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The last socialist we hang shall be the one who gave us the rope.

The problem with communism or socialism is how it burdens the people even further with new layers of tyranny. Labor Unions, one of the solutions to come along to combat communism and socialism, aren't a solution for the people either but have become just another layer to the tyanny of organized crime against the people. Still, the United States has a social agenda as a nation isn't a family but an adopted family while the Almighty clearly and unquestionably blessed the multitudes with His Gospel. So, as the Disciples were charged to go forth and feed the multitudes, governments (necessary tyranny) are never justified in neglecting their people.

[0zzy]

There are people who talk, and there are people who act. Look in the mirror and ask yourself which applies to you.

For most of my dad's career was in medical logistics, so at least his career in the "empire" was spent helping doctors get what they needed to help both military and civilians. :D?

Besides, I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm not exactly sure what everyone else thinks, but I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any restrictions on military payment and benefits and the military is constitutional. So, it's not as if I''m participating in something "unconstitutional" (well, instead when I pay income tax and social security every week! :D).

If it turns out to be true that I will end up getting all these benefits, I will take it. I can't take a loan, for most of those are owned by the government anyways! (But indeed you do pay those back).

As for college isn't needed, eehhh... I suppose it depends. I think by moving to Orange County as a student it will indeed help me establish myself in a new city/area so I can get better opprotunities for myself.

My aunt went to college and majored in biology to become a doctor, and now she is a marketing director at one of the largest corporations in the world. It doesn't matter what you get your degree in, it's that you have one. But even then you could be half stupid.

She told me a story of how they sent someone to go to a expensive private university to get her masters, and even though she got straight A's, she came back and she was horrible cause she didn't know how to apply it to the real world and they fired her. So it's very true that a college degree means nothing, but it can help you get in the door!

[Elwar]

The problem with communism or socialism is how it burdens the people even further with new layers of tyranny. Labor Unions, one of the solutions to come along to combat communism and socialism, aren't a solution for the people either but have become just another layer to the tyanny of organized crime against the people. Still, the United States has a social agenda as a nation isn't a family but an adopted family while the Almighty clearly and unquestionably blessed the multitudes with His Gospel. So, as the Disciples were charged to go forth and feed the multitudes, governments (necessary tyranny) are never justified in neglecting their people.

Didn't quite get that...I was just ripping on Marx...

[Lymeade-Lady]

If you could afford to bless your countries finances by not taking the money and paying cash, I would consider it. But I go with the Proverbs quote that the borrower is slave to the lender. I suggest socialism is better than slavery. Ok, you could argue against that point, but hopefully you get the idea. And you would be in a different position if you/your fam weren't taxed so much. When times have been hard, I've considered looking into welfare for electric bills, etc. But so far we haven't needed to, so I haven't. I think we would qualify. So, if you can afford to not take it, don't. If you can't afford it, then take it and work toward a country where your kids don't need to take the money b/c you have money and the govt doesn't take too much of it (oh, and it's still worth something).

Also, if 99% of people take the money and you don't, it's not helping our deficit much, but it is hurting you.

[Promontorium]

I'm a recent veteran, current college student, and I won't get nearly as much as you. So I am a bit jealous at your money grubbing.

But in general. The socialists think they always win on this issue. They steal your money, give it to everyone else. You ask for some of it back, and they call you a hypocrite.

It's not hypocrisy.

While you're being robbed, being able to get some of it back is just. But the effort should be to cut off the hand that robs you.

Although, I think when it comes to getting generic government money for college, you are screwing people over. There isn't enough tax money for everyone to go to college, and the socialization of college has made paying for it legitimately nearly impossible.

My friend took loans to become a dentist. He will be in debt until he retires. Obama's socialist babies will go to college at the expense of national poverty, and then he'll hire them to expand government.

[__27__]

Sorry guy. It doesn't matter how you spin it. A contract with a socialist institution is still socialist agreement. The argument has nothing to do with contracts among private parties.

Don't try to turn the argument into a discussion about contracting. It is a discussion about associating with socialism. Socialist institutions also contract among each other, so whether or not a contract is present in some association has nothing to do with determining the practice of socialism.

Sorry guy. It doesn't matter how you spin it, it is a contract. He is not being handed money because of his skin color, or because he's 'poor', he's being payed monies that were PROMISED to him by way of a CONTRACT.

If you don't believe in contracts, you don't believe in individual freedom.

[0zzy]

I'm a recent veteran, current college student, and I won't get nearly as much as you. So I am a bit jealous at your money grubbing.

But in general. The socialists think they always win on this issue. They steal your money, give it to everyone else. You ask for some of it back, and they call you a hypocrite.

It's not hypocrisy.

While you're being robbed, being able to get some of it back is just. But the effort should be to cut off the hand that robs you.

Although, I think when it comes to getting generic government money for college, you are screwing people over. There isn't enough tax money for everyone to go to college, and the socialization of college has made paying for it legitimately nearly impossible.

My friend took loans to become a dentist. He will be in debt until he retires. Obama's socialist babies will go to college at the expense of national poverty, and then he'll hire them to expand government.

Wait, why won't you get the full benefits of the GI Bill? I think you had to serve at least, a total of ten years maybe for the 9/11 GI Bill? I take it you served only 6 or something or retired before 9/11?

Also, you live in California and if you are disabled at 0% or above you can get free instate tuition.

[mediahasyou]

if you use government roads, you are leaching off the state. the government has made all people (who wish to live a normal life) dependent on the state.

in a free economy, the market would be near full employment so businesses might offer education to future employees.

[Jeros]

Sorry guy. It doesn't matter how you spin it, it is a contract. He is not being handed money because of his skin color, or because he's 'poor', he's being payed monies that were PROMISED to him by way of a CONTRACT.

If you don't believe in contracts, you don't believe in individual freedom.

That is silly. Contracts aren't exclusive to freedom. Is this really that difficult to see? Coercive governments contract between each other all the time. How is in any way interpreted as individual freedom?

What you are describing is a bunch of people voting to take away a bunch of other peoples money (who don't want to give it away) to give to some other people that will go kill some foreign people. How is that spin? That is what is happening. It is entirely socialist. If the military was a private firm that contracted out security services on a voluntary basis, it would be compatible with individual freedom. Government teachers enter into contracts. Government janitors enter into contracts. Government road workers enter into contracts. These are all socialist arrangements.

I am sorry if you still hold the US military in such high regards that you are blinded by what it is. I am not spinning anything, I am just applying consistent definitions.

[0zzy]

That is silly. Contracts aren't exclusive to freedom. Is this really that difficult to see? Coercive governments contract between each other all the time. How is in any way interpreted as individual freedom?

What you are describing is a bunch of people voting to take away a bunch of other peoples money (who don't want to give it away) to give to some other people that will go kill some foreign people. How is that spin? That is what is happening. It is entirely socialist. If the military was a private firm that contracted out security services on a voluntary basis, it would be compatible with individual freedom. Government teachers enter into contracts. Government janitors enter into contracts. Government road workers enter into contracts. These are all socialist arrangements.

I am sorry if you still hold the US military in such high regards that you are blinded by what it is. I am not spinning anything, I am just applying consistent definitions.

Just want to add my dad never went out and killed anyone, he's never been to war, so, there's that :).

And if that is your definition of socialist, than I believe in a socialized defense (being a Constitutionalists and all). Also, one can hold US Military soldiers in high regard for voluntarily doing a job that puts their lives in danger in the defense of others. It's just that the politicians in Washington have used them as action toys instead of human beings to play war in the battlefields of a far off land. Blame the politicians not the military soldiers, I say!

(though not all military soldiers are honorable men, as can be seen with the Marine rapist in Okinawa, and the people who join just to "kill people," as if it were a game - i'm reminded of a quote from the movie Full Metal Jacket,
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell)

[Jeros]

Just want to add my dad never went out and killed anyone, he's never been to war, so, there's that :).

And if that is your definition of socialist, than I believe in a socialized defense (being a Constitutionalists and all). Also, one can hold US Military soldiers in high regard for voluntarily doing a job that puts their lives in danger in the defense of others. It's just that the politicians in Washington have used them as action toys instead of human beings to play war in the battlefields of a far off land. Blame the politicians not the military soldiers, I say!

(though not all military soldiers are honorable men, as can be seen with the Marine rapist in Okinawa, and the people who join just to "kill people," as if it were a game - i'm reminded of a quote from the movie Full Metal Jacket,
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell)

I am sure you dad is a great guy, especially if you have enough independence in thought to support Ron Paul while having high regards for him.

As far as holding the US military or soldiers in general in high regard, I don't think that is consistent with the vast majority of the historic undertakings of our military. There is not one major war that was a necessity to be involved in over a couple hundred years. Most of the wars were aggressive in nature. The only point of a modern military is to deter aggression through presence, so any military action our government takes is likely aggressive.

Military service members are not volunteers. They receive compensation that is better than their alternatives. If not for the compensation, most would not serve. I have known many who honorably separated because they abhorred the lifestyle, only to reenlist because they couldn't do better elsewhere. They are mercenaries, but because they are socialist mercenaries, we should hold them in high regard no matter their actions?

No soldier alive today has fought for your freedom. Any soldier who understands the significance of his actions and his association with the government is constitutional obligated to not follow the orders of his superiors. I honor the soldiers who violate immoral orders, but after that point they are no longer soldiers because they would be dishonorably discharged.

You do believe socialized defense, and that's really the point I was making. Lets call a spade a spade. Mr. 27 also believes in socialized defense, which he doesn't want to admit to. That means you believe in the forceful confiscation of property to support the military. Since our military is explicitly aggressive, you believe it is okay to take from people to support an institution whose effect on the world is violence and death. That is unless you would support an option for anybody to completely opt out of the forced association. If some action is not okay for an individual to do, then it is not okay for a government to do, with NO exceptions.

I don't want to belittle your father, or any other specific military member. I served overseas in the military. I am currently benefiting from that socialist arrangement through GI Bill benefits. I fault myself for not understanding the situation for what is is earlier, but I am under no impression that what I did, or any other military member does, is selflessly defend this nation from aggressors. Any indirect good that comes out of our massive military would exist in some other form if the military ceased to exist.

[__27__]

That is silly. Contracts aren't exclusive to freedom. Is this really that difficult to see? Coercive governments contract between each other all the time. How is in any way interpreted as individual freedom?

What you are describing is a bunch of people voting to take away a bunch of other peoples money (who don't want to give it away) to give to some other people that will go kill some foreign people. How is that spin? That is what is happening. It is entirely socialist. If the military was a private firm that contracted out security services on a voluntary basis, it would be compatible with individual freedom. Government teachers enter into contracts. Government janitors enter into contracts. Government road workers enter into contracts. These are all socialist arrangements.

I am sorry if you still hold the US military in such high regards that you are blinded by what it is. I am not spinning anything, I am just applying consistent definitions.

Yes, that is quite silly. What you are saying is that apparently you are the decider of what constitutes a valid contract. Apparently two parties reaching an agreement and entering into a contract does not make a contract. I'm not sure what alternate dimension it is you exist in, but I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

Here in reality, a contract is a binding agreement. And unless you believe in collective property and the abandonment of private property, you cannot decide which contracts you 'think' should be honored and which shouldn't. A contract was entered into, one party fulfilled his end, and the other party now needs to fulfill their end. It doesn't get any simpler than that.



I am sure you dad is a great guy, especially if you have enough independence in thought to support Ron Paul while having high regards for him.

As far as holding the US military or soldiers in general in high regard, I don't think that is consistent with the vast majority of the historic undertakings of our military. There is not one major war that was a necessity to be involved in over a couple hundred years. Most of the wars were aggressive in nature. The only point of a modern military is to deter aggression through presence, so any military action our government takes is likely aggressive.

Military service members are not volunteers. They receive compensation that is better than their alternatives. If not for the compensation, most would not serve. I have known many who honorably separated because they abhorred the lifestyle, only to reenlist because they couldn't do better elsewhere. They are mercenaries, but because they are socialist mercenaries, we should hold them in high regard no matter their actions?

No soldier alive today has fought for your freedom. Any soldier who understands the significance of his actions and his association with the government is constitutional obligated to not follow the orders of his superiors. I honor the soldiers who violate immoral orders, but after that point they are no longer soldiers because they would be dishonorably discharged.

You do believe socialized defense, and that's really the point I was making. Lets call a spade a spade. Mr. 27 also believes in socialized defense, which he doesn't want to admit to. That means you believe in the forceful confiscation of property to support the military. Since our military is explicitly aggressive, you believe it is okay to take from people to support an institution whose effect on the world is violence and death. That is unless you would support an option for anybody to completely opt out of the forced association. If some action is not okay for an individual to do, then it is not okay for a government to do, with NO exceptions.

I don't want to belittle your father, or any other specific military member. I served overseas in the military. I am currently benefiting from that socialist arrangement through GI Bill benefits. I fault myself for not understanding the situation for what is is earlier, but I am under no impression that what I did, or any other military member does, is selflessly defend this nation from aggressors. Any indirect good that comes out of our massive military would exist in some other form if the military ceased to exist.

Yes, no spin at all. I simply say that I believe in the validity of private property and contracts, and that all contracts must be enforced else all contracts lose their validity, and now I'm a global interventionist warmonger. :rolleyes:

Spare me the self-righteous BS.

[noxagol]

The only socialist things are that a) your dad worked for the military, and b) the state government is waiving the fees and not the institution you are going to. Dad working for the military is working for the government, I equate taking any money from the government that isn't already yours (ala tax 'refunds') to be engaging in socialism. In B, I am sure that the state is picking up the tuition and fees that get waived.

But, this is pretty damned minor compared to other socialist things, and moderately unavoidable.

[silus]

Sorry guy. It doesn't matter how you spin it. A contract with a socialist institution is still socialist agreement. The argument has nothing to do with contracts among private parties.

Don't try to turn the argument into a discussion about contracting. It is a discussion about associating with socialism. Socialist institutions also contract among each other, so whether or not a contract is present in some association has nothing to do with determining the practice of socialism.
Socialist institutions can make non-socialist agreements. It sounds like you're the one thats spinning it. :shrug

[Jeros]

Yes, that is quite silly. What you are saying is that apparently you are the decider of what constitutes a valid contract. Apparently two parties reaching an agreement and entering into a contract does not make a contract. I'm not sure what alternate dimension it is you exist in, but I'd be interested in hearing more about it.

Here in reality, a contract is a binding agreement. And unless you believe in collective property and the abandonment of private property, you cannot decide which contracts you 'think' should be honored and which shouldn't. A contract was entered into, one party fulfilled his end, and the other party now needs to fulfill their end. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Yes, no spin at all. I simply say that I believe in the validity of private property and contracts, and that all contracts must be enforced else all contracts lose their validity, and now I'm a global interventionist warmonger. :rolleyes:

Spare me the self-righteous BS.

Alright Mr. Spinbot, answer one simple question. The same question I've been more or less asking but you refuse to acknowledge. When one socialist government enters into a contract with another socialist government, is the practice of socialism taking place?

Again, contracts are not exclusive to those who abide by natural law. I actually CAN say what contracts are valid or not. Those contracts that require the initiation of force against an unwilling party are invalid. There are obviously other morally consistent stipulations regarding the validity of contracts, but since you seem to think all contracts are valid no matter the circumstance, maybe you should look them up.

If you claim that invalid contracts are not contracts at all, then the previous arrangement you described between the military and a military employee is also not a contract because the employee's pay required the confiscation of some other persons wealth, and you would pretty much be making my point for me.

[Jeros]

Socialist institutions can make non-socialist agreements. It sounds like you're the one thats spinning it. :shrug

Eh?! Really?! Please describe...

Am i really defending volunteerism against coercive socialism on RonPaulForums? Sigh.

[__27__]

Alright Mr. Spinbot, answer one simple question. The same question I've been more or less asking but you refuse to acknowledge. When one socialist government enters into a contract with another socialist government, is the practice of socialism taking place?

Again, contracts are not exclusive to those who abide by natural law. I actually CAN say what contracts are valid or not. Those contracts that require the initiation of force against an unwilling party are invalid. There are obviously other morally consistent stipulations regarding the validity of contracts, but since you seem to think all contracts are valid no matter the circumstance, maybe you should look them up.

If you claim that invalid contracts are not contracts at all, then the previous arrangement you described between the military and a military employee is also not a contract because the employee's pay required the confiscation of some other persons wealth, and you would pretty much be making my point for me.



Person A and Person B enter into a contract. Under the contract Person A is to provide labor and services for Person B in exchange for clearly defined compensation. Person A performs the labor/service. Person B is now liable to fulfill the contract by compensating Person A as described in the contract. If Person B does not have the money and chooses to steal it from another in order to pay person A, it DOES NOT invalidate the original contract. Person B is still liable to Person A for the contractual compensation he agreed to.

If you do not believe Person B is liable to Person A under the contract, you do not believe in contracts.

[Jeros]

Person A and Person B enter into a contract. Under the contract Person A is to provide labor and services for Person B in exchange for clearly defined compensation. Person A performs the labor/service. Person B is now liable to fulfill the contract by compensating Person A as described in the contract. If Person B does not have the money and chooses to steal it from another in order to pay person A, it DOES NOT invalidate the original contract. Person B is still liable to Person A for the contractual compensation he agreed to.

If you do not believe Person B is liable to Person A under the contract, you do not believe in contracts.

I do no dispute that. You again did not answer the question.

Also, if someone steals in order to fulfill a contract, the contract is not fulfilled because the property used still belongs to the original owner. Coercive socialism, which the US military can be described as, confiscates property through theft. Since stolen property cannot be used to fulfill contracts, how is such an arrangement legally fulfilled?

[Bucjason]

Take all the government money you can get your hands on.

Remember , it's really yours, not thiers , to begin with.

Not a single bit of hypocrisy in claiming as much of it back as possible.

[0zzy]

Take all the government money you can get your hands on.

Remember , it's really yours, not thiers , to begin with.

Not a single bit of hypocrisy in claiming as much of it back as possible.

Well considering I'll be paying more than 38,000$ into social security and other things in my lifetime via taxes, and will never see it at the other end, I can defintently see how that works out.

Also, lots of debates going on this thread! *gets popcorn*

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

For most of my dad's career was in medical logistics, so at least his career in the "empire" was spent helping doctors get what they needed to help both military and civilians. :D?

Besides, I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm not exactly sure what everyone else thinks, but I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any restrictions on military payment and benefits and the military is constitutional. So, it's not as if I''m participating in something "unconstitutional" (well, instead when I pay income tax and social security every week! :D).

If it turns out to be true that I will end up getting all these benefits, I will take it. I can't take a loan, for most of those are owned by the government anyways! (But indeed you do pay those back).

As for college isn't needed, eehhh... I suppose it depends. I think by moving to Orange County as a student it will indeed help me establish myself in a new city/area so I can get better opprotunities for myself.

My aunt went to college and majored in biology to become a doctor, and now she is a marketing director at one of the largest corporations in the world. It doesn't matter what you get your degree in, it's that you have one. But even then you could be half stupid.

She told me a story of how they sent someone to go to a expensive private university to get her masters, and even though she got straight A's, she came back and she was horrible cause she didn't know how to apply it to the real world and they fired her. So it's very true that a college degree means nothing, but it can help you get in the door!

We weren't brought to the Truth to act. Our nation was founded on a natural law to belong.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Person A and Person B enter into a contract. Under the contract Person A is to provide labor and services for Person B in exchange for clearly defined compensation. Person A performs the labor/service. Person B is now liable to fulfill the contract by compensating Person A as described in the contract. If Person B does not have the money and chooses to steal it from another in order to pay person A, it DOES NOT invalidate the original contract. Person B is still liable to Person A for the contractual compensation he agreed to.

If you do not believe Person B is liable to Person A under the contract, you do not believe in contracts.

Let Person A = pimp
Let Person B = prostitute

Neither person A nor person B functions under the legal precedence of a contract, but under a cruel reality brought about because of legal precedence.
Think of TRUTH as representing a blue sky while REALITY represents an apple in a tree. Now, as this will certainly benefit tyranny and those who banty legal precedence, we are always told to believe that we can hit the apple in a tree while at the same time we are prevented, by many devious means, from aiming at the ideal of a blue sky . Now as anyone who has ever aimed at something with a bow and arrow knows, one has to aim at the blue sky in order to hit an apple out of a tree.
So, Civil Purpose (Truth) must supercede legal precedence (reality). In following this formula, our national contentment improves.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Take all the government money you can get your hands on.

Remember , it's really yours, not thiers , to begin with.

Not a single bit of hypocrisy in claiming as much of it back as possible.

There is a subtle difference between a parasite and a symbiote with the first keeping its host body in a chronic state of ill health solely for its own benefit while the second works with the host body for the improved benefit of both symbiote and the host body.

[silus]

Eh?! Really?! Please describe...

Am i really defending volunteerism against coercive socialism on RonPaulForums? Sigh.
Um, again you're trying to spin it. I'm not sure you are expressing yourself clearly. I only pointed out the logical fallacy in your argument of a socialist institution only being able to make socialist agreements. Thats just plain wrong. And it has nothing to do with volunteerism or coercive socialism.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The government, through allowing prices for college to skyrocket because of their guaranteeing loans (and the Fed), has, unfortunately, made it necessary for almost everyone to take out a loan. Don't worry, the way this is headed, you'll be paying them back in worthless paper.

I didn't have to take out a loan :D:D:D:D:D

Taking out a loan is akin to sealing a deal with the devil, in my perspective. I'll stop my education before taking out a loan.

[Jeros]

Um, again you're trying to spin it. I'm not sure you are expressing yourself clearly. I only pointed out the logical fallacy in your argument of a socialist institution only being able to make socialist agreements. Thats just plain wrong. And it has nothing to do with volunteerism or coercive socialism.

You didn't demonstrate a logical fallacy, you just said "Socialist institutions can make non-socialist agreements." If you were to show a logical fallacy, you would have had to describe in a logical progression how I was in error. You only stated I was wrong with no accompanying argument.

A socialist institution would not exist without socialism taking place. In any case, whatever the socialist institution does, socialism has to exist for them to do it. Any action the institution takes is therefor socialistic.

Even in indirect cases, like say if a socialist institution organized a bunch of volunteers to help out in some humanitarian crises, they would be acting as socialist organizers.

I didn't spin anything. I asked you to provide me an example of a socialist institution making any agreement that is not socialist. You have yet to do so. The only non-socialist action a socialist institution can take is to stop acting altogether. The only way they can not be socialist is by ceasing to exist. I guess if they agreed not to exist, that agreement wouldn't be socialist, but then they wouldn't exist either, so would an agreement even have been made? Doesn't an agreement require two parties? :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You didn't demonstrate a logical fallacy, you just said "Socialist institutions can make non-socialist agreements." If you were to show a logical fallacy, you would have had to describe in a logical progression how I was in error. You only stated I was wrong with no accompanying argument.

A socialist institution would not exist without socialism taking place. In any case, whatever the socialist institution does, socialism has to exist for them to do it. Any action the institution takes is therefor socialistic.

Even in indirect cases, like say if a socialist institution organized a bunch of volunteers to help out in some humanitarian crises, they would be acting as socialist organizers.

I didn't spin anything. I asked you to provide me an example of a socialist institution making any agreement that is not socialist. You have yet to do so. The only non-socialist action a socialist institution can take is to stop acting altogether. The only way they can not be socialist is by ceasing to exist. I guess if they agreed not to exist, that agreement wouldn't be socialist, but then they wouldn't exist either, so would an agreement even have been made? Doesn't an agreement require two parties? :D

Being Jewish Himself, the Lord Jesus spent half His time on earth blessing all things Jewish (Judaism) in the temples along with the economy based on Jewish law and the Ten Commandments. Being the Almighty, this damned the slaves to a life of begging and subsistance. What to do?
Well, halfway through His ministry and mission on earth, the Lord abruptly left the temple, never to return, to approach straightway a prostitute -- the wretched representative of the Gentiles. There He revealed to her a new economy based on a New Covenant "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Now, because the slaves did not own property, this new commandment is paradoxical. In fact, most Christians after the time of Christ had to worship while hiding under overturned fishing vessels as, by Roman law, they would have had to suffer the same fate as the false prophet had to endure if caught in the act of doing so (the reason for Watchmen). So, this new economy was created because slaves loved their brothers and sisters sitting next to them, not because they loved the property owners living next to them.
"Loving our neighbor as ourselves" commands tolerance as the most efficient way to give. We need to leave people alone. Read the Lord's prayer and you will perceive how the Lord's economy works. A slave trespasses against a property ownder by venturing on their property. A property owner trespasses against a slave by violating their souls.

[erowe1]

I guess I am a hypocrite because, despite being against socialism, I will be taking a government money to go to college.

My dad is in the military and can transfer his education benefits over to me under the post9/11 GI Bill, meaning I can use...

$1000 book stipend
$13,338 basic allowance for housing

Also, in the state of California if you are a dependent of a military parent with 0% disability, you can get your tuition/fees waived which is a total of...

$4,662 per year.

Meaning for my remaining two years of college I could, in essence, collect around...

$38,000 in benefits for 2 years
(or more, if I decided to get a double major!)

That sounds pretty damn socialist to me. It is an apple that was seen in the Garden of Eden, and I'm about to screw all of mankind right now by getting kicked out.

Can someone tell me, will I be getting banned after revealing this? And can someone convince me that going in debt by getting now-defunct-loans would be a better choice? (And aren't those loans run by the government mostly? or the now failed banks?)

:X

I drive on tax payer funded roads all the time.

[tnvoter]

If you cannot afford school are you are own, and are forced to pay taxes (as you are) then you are entitled to it. Get a peice of paper and make a good change in the country bro, gl.

[Jeros]

Being Jewish Himself, the Lord Jesus spent half His time on earth blessing all things Jewish (Judaism) in the temples along with the economy based on Jewish law and the Ten Commandments. Being the Almighty, this damned the slaves to a life of begging and subsistance. What to do?
Well, halfway through His ministry and mission on earth, the Lord abruptly left the temple, never to return, to approach straightway a prostitute -- the wretched representative of the Gentiles. There He revealed to her a new economy based on a New Covenant "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Now, because the slaves did not own property, this new commandment is paradoxical. In fact, most Christians after the time of Christ had to worship while hiding under overturned fishing vessels as, by Roman law, they would have had to suffer the same fate as the false prophet had to endure if caught in the act of doing so (the reason for Watchmen). So, this new economy was created because slaves loved their brothers and sisters sitting next to them, not because they loved the property owners living next to them.
"Loving our neighbor as ourselves" commands tolerance as the most efficient way to give. We need to leave people alone. Read the Lord's prayer and you will perceive how the Lord's economy works. A slave trespasses against a property ownder by venturing on their property. A property owner trespasses against a slave by violating their souls.

Forgive me if I don't understand the significance of your response. Please define "slave" and "property owner."

[silus]

You didn't demonstrate a logical fallacy, you just said "Socialist institutions can make non-socialist agreements." If you were to show a logical fallacy, you would have had to describe in a logical progression how I was in error. You only stated I was wrong with no accompanying argument.

A socialist institution would not exist without socialism taking place. In any case, whatever the socialist institution does, socialism has to exist for them to do it. Any action the institution takes is therefor socialistic.

Even in indirect cases, like say if a socialist institution organized a bunch of volunteers to help out in some humanitarian crises, they would be acting as socialist organizers.

I didn't spin anything. I asked you to provide me an example of a socialist institution making any agreement that is not socialist. You have yet to do so. The only non-socialist action a socialist institution can take is to stop acting altogether. The only way they can not be socialist is by ceasing to exist. I guess if they agreed not to exist, that agreement wouldn't be socialist, but then they wouldn't exist either, so would an agreement even have been made? Doesn't an agreement require two parties? :D
I think you are a bit confused with the meaning of one word, "action," and what is the necessary relationship between action and actor. And by confusing this meaning you also make another error by suggesting a pure socialist institution can exist.

[Promontorium]

Wait, why won't you get the full benefits of the GI Bill? I think you had to serve at least, a total of ten years maybe for the 9/11 GI Bill? I take it you served only 6 or something or retired before 9/11?

Also, you live in California and if you are disabled at 0% or above you can get free instate tuition.

I will get the full benefits of the GI Bill, but it seems you're still coming out ahead.

One only needs to serve something like 2 years to get the full GI Bill, and that has to be after 9/11 (the reason I joined) to get the 9/11 GI Bill.

But I don't know about any of this "free tuition" business.

9/11 GI Bill promises to pay the tuition but that's different. Really different, for in order to do that, I get much less in actual dollars (compared to standard GI Bill which gives out a flat rate).



edit: bad formatting, I was saying I joined because of 9/11, not because of the GI Bill.
But don't cry for me Argentina. This really wasn't my point.

[Jeros]

I think you are a bit confused with the meaning of one word, "action," and what is the necessary relationship between action and actor. And by confusing this meaning you also make another error by suggesting a pure socialist institution can exist.

Huh? What? Example?

You're not big on thorough or useful explanations are ya?

[silus]

no.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Forgive me if I don't understand the significance of your response. Please define "slave" and "property owner."

When speaking of a slave, I'm referring to the direct inverse of the Father Abraham in the Old Testament, the father of Isaac. Abraham was blessed with a namesake and a bright shiney face; while, in contrast to Abraham, the dark prostitute, the uncomeliest representative of the slave / serving class, is nameless and faceless. Just consider that Jesus own mother Mary would have been a member of the seven wretched sisters that He preached His Gospel to, as she was likewise deemed a prostitute by the Jews afterall. As Jesus, by law, was limited in His fellowship with His Disciples in delving into matters concerning the Old Testament, He also, by law, could not touch a prostitute (who represented the Gentile nations). So, instead, He spoke His Word, the Gospel, to them.
So, a granted property owner would be a master (as all property was owned by the emperor, so, in a sense, the title of master is only lent out). The New Covenant by Jesus Christ, as substantiated by the Lord's prayer, does not require that we be property owning masters and that we obey the law by not trespassing on another person's property, but that we may, in the eyes of the Almighty, live as slaves as long as we avoid trespassing on another person's soul.
Such a covenant is very unique as it shows how much Jesus had unlimited tolerance having to grieve as a shepherd in the midst of the flock tolerating the false authority of those strong ones leading at the head of it while He also had to tolerate the inadequacies of those weaker ones straggling behind failing to obey the laws of the flock.

[anaconda]

I guess I am a hypocrite

Not necessarily. Think of yourself like Ron Paul: simply trying to get as much of your income tax returned to you as possible. Ron Paul votes for many tax credit bills.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sorry guy. It doesn't matter how you spin it, it is a contract. He is not being handed money because of his skin color, or because he's 'poor', he's being payed monies that were PROMISED to him by way of a CONTRACT.

If you don't believe in contracts, you don't believe in individual freedom.

If the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers supercedes all past traditions and future events yet to occur, and the Civil Purpose of the people supercedes the legal precedence of tyranny, then the natural rights of the people supercede all inequitable contracts set up to their detrement through the legal precedence of necessary tyranny.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Not necessarily. Think of yourself like Ron Paul: simply trying to get as much of your income tax returned to you as possible. Ron Paul votes for many tax credit bills.

Like it or not, America has a social agenda

There is a subtle difference between a parasite and a symbiote with the first keeping its host body in a chronic state of ill health solely for its own benefit while the second works with the host body for the improved benefit of both symbiote and the host body.

[torchbearer]

if everyone got on welfare of some kind, the government would collapse.
so, you are doing a good thing.

[Jeros]

If the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers supercedes all past traditions and future events yet to occur, and the Civil Purpose of the people supercedes the legal precedence of tyranny, then the natural rights of the people supercede all inequitable contracts set up to their detrement through the legal precedence of necessary tyranny.

Should contracts be enforced on any legal level? Does a party who enters into an inequitable contract have a moral right to follow through on the contract? I am sure that without criminal and civil penalties, the markets could adequately enforce contracts through social pressure, reputation, and collateral.

Contracts could be inequitable while still within the bounds of natural rights. Both parties of voluntary rational contracts believe they are getting more than they are giving. Because of the undefinable nature of value, most people would likely believe that most contracts are inequitable. By "detriment" do you mean that an inequitable contract is defined as incompatible with natural rights?

A non-moral argument often used for the justification of the abolishment of intellectual property is that the huge amount of resources required to enforce IP makes humans worse off because the direct product of those resources is zero, and uninterrupted incremental innovation is made illegal because of a monopoly on information. The underutilized labor portion of that argument may apply to contract enforcement as well.

[Jeros]

When speaking of a slave, I'm referring to the direct inverse of the Father Abraham in the Old Testament, the father of Isaac. Abraham was blessed with a namesake and a bright shiney face; while, in contrast to Abraham, the dark prostitute, the uncomeliest representative of the slave / serving class, is nameless and faceless. Just consider that Jesus own mother Mary would have been a member of the seven wretched sisters that He preached His Gospel to, as she was likewise deemed a prostitute by the Jews afterall. As Jesus, by law, was limited in His fellowship with His Disciples in delving into matters concerning the Old Testament, He also, by law, could not touch a prostitute (who represented the Gentile nations). So, instead, He spoke His Word, the Gospel, to them.
So, a granted property owner would be a master (as all property was owned by the emperor, so, in a sense, the title of master is only lent out). The New Covenant by Jesus Christ, as substantiated by the Lord's prayer, does not require that we be property owning masters and that we obey the law by not trespassing on another person's property, but that we may, in the eyes of the Almighty, live as slaves as long as we avoid trespassing on another person's soul.
Such a covenant is very unique as it shows how much Jesus had unlimited tolerance having to grieve as a shepherd in the midst of the flock tolerating the false authority of those strong ones leading at the head of it while He also had to tolerate the inadequacies of those weaker ones straggling behind failing to obey the laws of the flock.

I think you have a different and deeper understanding of certain vocabulary within the context of Christianity than I. This lack of understanding is likely true of of others as well. In other words, don't take offense if someone tells you they have no idea what your talking about. :D

I myself would differentiate between a property owner and a property taker (which slaveholders, governments, and royalty all are.) Maybe it is not necessary to differentiate between the three "authorities."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Should contracts be enforced on any legal level? Does a party who enters into an inequitable contract have a moral right to follow through on the contract? I am sure that without criminal and civil penalties, the markets could adequately enforce contracts through social pressure, reputation, and collateral.

Contracts could be inequitable while still within the bounds of natural rights. Both parties of voluntary rational contracts believe they are getting more than they are giving. Because of the undefinable nature of value, most people would likely believe that most contracts are inequitable. By "detriment" do you mean that an inequitable contract is defined as incompatible with natural rights?

A non-moral argument often used for the justification of the abolishment of intellectual property is that the huge amount of resources required to enforce IP makes humans worse off because the direct product of those resources is zero, and uninterrupted incremental innovation is made illegal because of a monopoly on information. The underutilized labor portion of that argument may apply to contract enforcement as well.

While legal precedence is upheld over Civil Purpose in the courtroom, Civil Purpose will defeat legal precedence on the battlefield. The war boils down to the legal precedence of tyranny versus the Civil Purpose of the prostituted. But there is an intelligent argument here. One doesn't have to fight, but one can submit to the greater power. Right now, most of us are being deceived by the false power of tyranny.
There is no contract between a pimp and a whore save for tradition. This tyranny, the world's oldest profession, was deemed a cruel lie by our Founding Fathers and replaced by a natural law, a self evident and unalienable Truth (or a collection of self evident truths or unalienable natural rights that reduce to a Truth).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think you have a different and deeper understanding of certain vocabulary within the context of Christianity than I. This lack of understanding is likely true of of others as well. In other words, don't take offense if someone tells you they have no idea what your talking about. :D

I myself would differentiate between a property owner and a property taker (which slaveholders, governments, and royalty all are.) Maybe it is not necessary to differentiate between the three "authorities."

As Hegel said people needed to own property to be free, Marx later set about trying to win property for the people.
Actually, history questions this notion. The original Christians, mostly slaves, did not own property yet their "faith" was all consumming. It was only through deception that their fire was put out when Constantine chose to build a new religion rather than convert to their faith. Saint Augustine crafted this new religion using Plato mostly as his guide. This put an end to the original faith as the people were force to convert. So, the owndership of property is not necessary for people to be free.

[noxagol]

Here is what Walter Block has to say on it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block150.html