Originally posted by normbenign
So according to the Maurauder, expenses of parents ought to be paid for by others, but singles can take care of themselves.

People having children is necessary for the continued existence of society. So this and most other societies have decided to decrease the financial penalty that having a child almost always incurs by granting a tax deduction and sometimes tax credits to partially offset that cost. Society doesn't have to, but where a democratically selected legislature makes such an obviously rational decision to do so I don't see it as some kind of invidious discrimination against people who don't have kids.

Originally posted by normbenign
You know as well as I do, that the State covets the money it can glean from estates. Money that has already been taxes usually multiple time. And lawyers love it, because the whole thing is loaded with litigation.

There's litigation over wills because people want the money, not because of lawyers. You're blaming the bartenders for alcoholics.

Hardly any estates get taxed any more. And they should be taxed as what they are; ordinary income to the beneficiaries.

Originally posted by normbenign
Is it the responsibility of all others to subsidize marriage and breeding? Sure there are costs, and there are costs to single people as well.

It is then legitimate public policy to favor one group of citizens over another. That is the sad result of a democracy allowing people to vote to spend other people's money.

I realize you hate democracy because rich folks might have to pay what most of society believe is their fair share of the bounty that the economic system created and maintained by society has made it possible for them to obtain.

Economic regulation is the main task of government:

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

James Madison, Federalist #10

Originally posted by normbenign
How so? The rich guy did not have to marry the stupid young woman. He probably could have hired a pro for a lot less money.

Exactly...?

Seems we agree??

He didn't have to. But he did. And with that he entered into a contract.

I'll repeat: he didn't have to. But he did. And with that he entered into a contract.

Originally posted by no1marauder
People having children is necessary for the continued existence of society. So this and most other societies have decided to decrease the financial penalty that having a child almost always incurs by granting a tax deduction and sometimes tax credits to partially offset that cost. Society doesn't have to, but where a democratically selected legislature ...[text shortened]... o so I don't see it as some kind of invidious discrimination against people who don't have kids.

There is no such thing as 'Society' in a free country. There are only individuals.

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no such thing as 'Society' in a free country. There are only individuals.

Now this is about the most stupidest thing I have heard or read yet. 🙄🙄🙄 Why does your wife drive bus then? for herself? or society? Is she really that big? 🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by KingDavid403
Now this is about the most stupidest thing I have heard or read yet. 🙄🙄🙄 Why does your wife drive bus then? for herself? or society? Is she really that big? 🙄🙄🙄

Of course you think the idea of freedom is stupid, you are a liberal. She got the job as a bus driver because the position was open. She needed a job and the job was available.

She now teaches because she wanted a different job and the position was open.

We work for money.

Originally posted by Eladar
Of course you think the idea of freedom is stupid, you are a liberal. She got the job as a bus driver because the position was open. She needed a job and the job was available.

She now teaches because she wanted a different job and the position was open.

We work for money.

I guess that going to work to make money doesn't really make sense to a liberal either. I understand why you are so confused.

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no such thing as 'Society' in a free country. There are only individuals.

Sorry, the human race is not designed to be a bunch of solitary, self-centered hermits but to be an emphatic social animal living in mutually supportive groups. If we were "only individuals", the species would have gone extinct long ago.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, the human race is not designed to be a bunch of solitary, self-centered hermits but to be an emphatic social animal living in mutually supportive groups. If we were "only individuals", the species would have gone extinct long ago.

I understand the point of view of the liberal/facist who believes that people are the slaves of the government, but that isn't really freedom.

Individuals can survive and the US became a great nation based on this idea.

Originally posted by Eladar
I understand the point of view of the liberal/facist who believes that people are the slaves of the government, but that isn't really freedom.

Individuals can survive and the US became a great nation based on this idea.

You are truly deranged to go from what I said to some imaginary advocacy of people being slaves to the government.

Originally posted by Eladar
Of course you think the idea of freedom is stupid, you are a liberal. She got the job as a bus driver because the position was open. She needed a job and the job was available.

She now teaches because she wanted a different job and the position was open.

We work for money.

Does she not work for society? 🙄🙄🙄 or does she only teach herself? or drive her arse around in a bus just for herself?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly deranged to go from what I said to some imaginary advocacy of people being slaves to the government.

I can see why you'd like to turn a blind eye to the obvious truth.

Originally posted by Eladar
I can see why you'd like to turn a blind eye to the obvious truth.

Typical narcissistic rapist lover. Me, Me, Me, 🙄🙄😴 You act like you are the only one who works for a living. That is if you actually do. Also, notice your wife would not have a job if it was not for society. 🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by Eladar
I can see why you'd like to turn a blind eye to the obvious truth.

What "liberal/fascist" wrote this:

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.


????????????????????????