i was wondering if players refuse to play as germans in a WWII setting. I'm just getting bored with Americans, Russians and Englishmen in WWII games.

is this a bad idea?

------------------
[ Dmitry Smirnov ][ MSN/email: smirnov@hotmail.co.uk ]
http://dssweb.v27.net <-- go here for retarded flash movies! And stuff!
GET OUT OF MY TRIP JOHN LENNON!

How about a war game where you play a journarlist/cameraman who - after the army squad gets killed, has to pick up a gun and shoot his way out? That would really play on the fact that you're way out of your depth in the situation and makes it scarier. Like in HL you were -just- a scientist.

There'd be sections where you only have a camera and have to capture the battle without getting shot.

Stalin was as horrible as Hitler, if not more.

[This message has been edited by mrsak (edited 04-21-2005).]

|EDIT| mrsak - Stalin and Hitler had major differences. Initially, there was nothing wrong with Stalin, but soon after he got in charge of the soviet union, he cracked under the stress and developed a mental illness(IMO most likely schizophrenia) which caused him to believe everyone who could, was conspiring against him, and that's when his purges started where he killed off a lot of important people. Therefore, I actually feel sorry for Stalin, because in reality, because if you ignore what he did due to his paranoid disorder (I know, killing off loads of people isn't easy to ignore), you realize he actually did a hell of a lot of good. Hitler, on the other hand, as difficult as it may be to believe had no mental illness, and did everything he did voluntarily. And even if you ignore all that I have just said, Stalin was still nowhere near as bad as Hitler - he never started any wars, he never wanted to conquer anything, he didn't kill as many people, an he turned a screwed monarchist country with peasants into one of the two most powerful countries in the world in its time. But unfortunately in the minds of many people his paranoid mental illness overshadowed his good deeds. |EDIT|

------------------
[ Dmitry Smirnov ][ MSN/email: smirnov@hotmail.co.uk ]
http://dssweb.v27.net <-- go here for retarded flash movies! And stuff!
GET OUT OF MY TRIP JOHN LENNON!

It think it is fun to play every aspect of a game.

What you might think about doing is....

Side 1) American
Side 2) German

All side 1 and 2 missions match each other.

So say mission 1 for the americans is to go place bombs along the german coast line and then get back on a boat and get out. Mission 1 for the germans would be to stop the americans from placing bombs on the coast.

Command and Conquer did this type of style with NOD and GDI and I loved it. Come to think about it.......*runs off to install C&C*

quote:

---

Originally posted by DSS:
but firstly most nazi soldiers actually were nazi

---

It depends on wich country the soldiers where in. Here in Norway, most soldiers where poles and netherlanders, ordered out and agreed beacuse their family suffered. But SS was the bastards.

quote:

---

he cracked under the stress and developed a mental illness(IMO most likely schizophrenia) which caused him to believe everyone who could, was conspiring against him, and that's when his purges started where he killed off a lot of important people. Therefore, I actually feel sorry for Stalin, because in reality, because if you ignore what he did due to his paranoid disorder (I know, killing off loads of people isn't easy to ignore), you realize he actually did a hell of a lot of good. Hitler, on the other hand,

---

power corrupts....thats a fact

------------------

[This message has been edited by Zeptera (edited 04-21-2005).]

And Hitler was not crazy, he was just EXTREEMLY prejudice. He was probubly one of the most intelligent men of his time. I mean you have to be to conqure that much of Europe. Arnold Shwartzineggar actually stated that he admires Hitler because he didn't come from a rich family and he rose to be a very influential political power that brought germany out of an economic depression.

I personally woulden't mind playing a german, but if in one of the missions you go to a Death Camp and start shooting down the non-christians and the political "enemies" of germany along with forcing people to go into a gas chamber then I have issues with it.

quote:

---

*runs off to install C&C*

---

quote:

---

In war games, I refuse to play as anything other than the 'good guys', because it hurts my sense of morality to play for some immooral people in a game based on a real war. Therefore, I don't play for nazis in WW2 games, and I don't play as Americans in Vietnam games etc.

---

back to the game. choice is ALWAYS good.

quote:

---

oh please!....
you probably werent even born when the vietnam was was on! and certainly not during the 2nd world war.
what makes 1 side good or bad. the fact that 2 guys of whatever nationality are shooting each other dead cant be good.

---

(Borrowed from SopiSoft )

------------------
Afr0 for life!

On-topic: I actually play as the germans a lot in WW2 games, but that's mostly because i like their weapons more than those of the others, at least this is the case in Day Of Defeat.

in games like "Enemy Territories" the germans are just cooler looking...and better weapons...

everyone is running around and killing each other anyways...

SO, who really is the good guys?

------------------
lets all move to http://www.flipcode.com

And ive noticed the language has gotten out of control lately, please refrain from swearing on this forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SopiSoft:
@ Afr0: Huh? What did you borrow from me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SopiSoft:
LOL! This must be the quote of the moth!

---

------------------
Afr0 for life!

There are a fair amount of RTS games where you get to play the bad guys. C&C Generals lets you play as suicide terrorists too. And lets not forget the numerous Star Wars games where you get to be the empire, in fact I believe that that was kicked off by the game "Tie Fighter" wasn't it?

------------------
Total FONT - Create awesome Bitmap Fonts!
Particle Mania - Cool particle effects, flares, and stuff!

quote:

---

we were stoping the spred of comunisum from north to south nam

---

Both were evil men - make no excuses for them.

If you don't play as the Nazis in a game like Panzer General III then there is actually no point in buying the game in the first place, as that's 50% of the game wasted then.

1: WWII games are fun, but theres a TON OF 'EM!

2: It would be scary to be a nazi, those guys gunned down innocent people in the streets, not to mention what happened in belgum...(Not that belgum was being innocently slaughtered, they fought back too)

3: Im supposed to be gon from BC by now...

4: Get a new edge! Try the revoluntionary war or somethin!

5: Shcool break over, back to that essay.... !

quote:

---

Originally posted by ooey:
Stalin decent? my goodness! Whatever next?! He actually attacked Norway shortly after Hitler attacked Poland,

---

hi did not...he attacked Finland, or was it the way around?...And did you know that anti-communist groups or nations were acctually trying to implement communism into Russia beacuse Russia was not ready for any revolution, so communism there would fail?

------------------

[This message has been edited by Zeptera (edited 04-22-2005).]

|EDIT| Did you know that Stalin was actually responsible for killing more people than Hitler?[edit]Actually, nobody knows, nobody ever counted. Some say he killed more, some say less. I must point out though, that (although this makes no difference to the lost lives) Hitler killed people for simply being jewish, whereas Stalin killed people because due to his little problem he thought they were conspiring against him. I'm just trying to say that the morals were different |EDIT|
------------------
[ Dmitry Smirnov ][ MSN/email: smirnov@hotmail.co.uk ]
http://dssweb.v27.net <-- go here for retarded flash movies! And stuff!
GET OUT OF MY TRIP JOHN LENNON!

If Hitler or Stalin had killed ONE person, you'd judge them as murderers, no question about it - but because they killed thousands, they are somehow elevated into a political status where the murders can be deliberated over whether they served a greater good or not.

What if your next door neighbor killed someone? -and what if they killed 10 or even a 100 people? The more they kill - the less important *each* killing seems, until eventally there are some people who start to see a justifiable good in it.

I know this is hard to grasp, but society is wierd - and a little thick.

I don't think communism is directly linked to murder, but it's still an unpleasant way to live IMO. Then again capitalism is also wrong.

What I'm saying is we need a new way of looking at things. Nothing that has come before has worked, so instead of choosing between past failures we should be thinking about actually destroying society as we know it, and starting again. Not through violence, but through knowledge. A lot of people take the first step by ~knowing~ something is wrong, but how many have the motivation to actually change it? Not many.

Anarchy is the key. Not revolution, since revolution is always followed by more of the same.

All the worlds governments will have you believe that anarchy is wrong. Why? Because it would take away their power - and they don't want that.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. You steal your neighbor's bull and ignore the government.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. You keep the cows and steal another one. You ignore the government.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

ANARCHISM: You have two cows. Your neighbor hits you over the head with a brick, steals your cows, then shoots them for fun. You later discover that he is a Nazi.

ARISTOCRATISM: You have two cows. You sell both and buy one really big cow - with a pedigree.

ARTIST -- VISUAL: You have two cows. You stuff them and put them in glass display boxes. In London.

BRITISH: You have two cows. They are crazy. You try to sell them in Europe.

BRITISH -- MAJOR: You have two cows. One has BSE. You get a vet to give the other one the all clear, and then declare there is no problem from BSE in your country.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. To register them, you fill in 17 forms in triplicate and don't have time to milk them.

BUREAUCRACY -- EUROPEAN UNION: You have two cows. The EU loses one cow, milks the other and then spills the milk.

BUREAUCRACY -- UNITED STATES: You have two cows. The government takes both, loses one while moving it to a farm in Puerto Rico and forgets to milk the other.

CANADIANISM: You have two cows. The bank takes both of them, shoots one, throws away the milk and you shoot yourself.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

CAPITALISM -- AMERICAN: You have two cows. You sell one of them, and buy a bull. The cow and bull have a great love life; you sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Then you go into real estate.

CAPITALISM -- HONG KONG You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the feng shui is bad.

CENTRALISM: You have two cows. And a problem finding them in the middle of the field with 100,000,000 other cows.

CONSERVATIVISM: You have two cows. You freeze the milk and embalm the cows.

CONSERVATIVISM: You have two cows. You lock them up, and charge people to look at them.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you part of the milk.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both cows. The government sells the milk in government stores. You can't afford the milk. You wither away.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The state takes both, and gives you a little milk ... once.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and gives you spoiled milk.

COMMUNISM -- CAMBODIAN: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

COMMUNISM -- CAMBODIAN: You have two cows. The government sends a teenager in a red bandana to shoot them, then he shoots you.

COMMUNISM -- CHINESE: You don't have any cows. The government sets up a joint venture with McDonald's.

COMMUNISM -- CHINESE: You have two cows. You take care of them. The government takes all the milk, but you are encouraged to steal some of it back (before someone else does).

COMMUNISM -- CHINESE - MAO STYLE: You have two pigs. The government launches a campaign to convince you to donate them "voluntarily" to provide meat for workers in the city. The government then declares that people don't need pigs to make pork. Quoting the correct phrases from your little red book, you and your neighbors try to create pork from sheer willpower. Your local party leader reports that you have exceeded all expectations. Your neighbors starve.

COMMUNISM -- CUBAN - CASTRO STYLE: Fidel Castro has two cows. They are F1's, a cross between the Cebu cow and the Holstein cow. Only one cow, "White Udder," works. When she dies she is stuffed and placed in a museum by Castro, "The Dictator of the Cows," where "future generations could admire her magnificent udders." You have not seen cow milk since 1985.

COMMUNISM -- CUBAN: You have two cows. Fidel tells you some undercover CIA agents have infected all of the cows in your region with a foreign disease that kills the cows. You and your family become malnourished. It begins to occur to you that Fidel doesn't know what he is talking about.

COMMUNISM -- CUBAN: You no longer have any cows. They sailed to Miami. You still have no milk - but you do have Fidel.

COMMUNISM -- "PURE": You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

COMMUNISM -- "PURE": You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. Well, maybe the local bully gets more, or a few neighbors band together to kill you so that there is more milk for everyone else.

COMMUNISM -- SOVIET: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. Then the government sends you to prison.

COMMUNISM -- SOVIET: You have two cows. You count them and realize you have
four cows. You drink more Vodka. You count the cows again and realize you have eleventy six cows. You drink even more Vodka. After a while, you realize that eleventy isn't a real number. You count the cows again and have two cows. You open another bottle of Vodka and try to drown the loss of eleventy four cows.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. A vote is held, and the cows win.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. They outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products. You go bankrupt.

DEMOCRACY -- AMERICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk and then blame Japan while border guards beat up Mexicans sneaking into the country. People are outraged for a week or so and then go back to televised sports where there's no violence.

DEMOCRACY -- AMERICAN (a republic): You have two cows. The government exercises those powers delegated to it by the people, who are sovereign. The majority does not rule because the people and their representatives (elected, appointed and employed) are constrained by various checks and balances, including the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three co-equal branches of government, and the 50 state republics (see, e.g., Article IV, section 4). So what the government does with your cows and with the milk from those cows depends on the interaction between the people and the checks and balances mentioned above.

DEMOCRACY -- BRITISH: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.

DEMOCRACY -- REPRESENTATIVE: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and drafts you.

EUROPEAN UNIONISM: You have two goats. The EU declares them to be fruit in order to conform to a rare Belgian custom of making Cow Jam (jam being required to have at least 45% fruit).

EUROPEAN UNIONISM: You have two cows. The EU develops a quota system that "limits the gas emissions from flatulent cows." You sell your carbon allotment, not the milk.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

FASCISM: You have two cows. You give the milk to the government and the government sells it.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes one away and presses it into military service.

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

FRISBEETARIANISM: You have two cows. One of them flies up on the roof and gets stuck. You hope the government provides cow ladders.

IDEALISM: You have two cows. You get married and your partner milks them.

INDUSTRIALISM: You have two cows. You dissect them both and figure out how to build a milk-factory instead.

LIBERALISM: You have two cows. You sell both to the rich. The government then taxes the rich one cow and gives it to the poor.

LIBERALISM: You have two cows. You give away one cow and get the government to give you a new cow. Then you give them both away.

LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. You let them do what they want.

LIBERTARIANISM: Go away. What I do with my cows is none of your business.

MARXISM/LENINISM: The proletarian cows unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie cowherds. The egalitarian democratic cow revolutionary state with the cow party as vanguard disintegrate over time. Marx choked on a veggie-burger before he could explain what happens to the use-value, exchange-value and sign-value of bovine leather.

NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and then shoots you.

NEW DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.

PACIFISM: You have two cows. They stampede you.

PEROTISM: You have two cows. You aren't allowed to sell the milk to Mexico.

PLATONISM: You have two cows. You look for two other cows to milk.

PLATONISM: You have a reflection of two perfect cows. Their milk tastes like water. You look for two real cows to milk.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESSISM: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of nonspecified gender.

PROTECTIONISM: You have two cows. You can't buy a bull from another country.

REDISTRIBUTIONISM: You have two cows. Everyone should have the same amount of cow. The government takes both cows, cuts them up, and spends more than the cows are worth giving everyone a little piece of cow.

SIMPSONISM: Don't have a cow man!

SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.

SOCIALISM -- BUREAUCRATIC: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

SOCIALISM -- PURE: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

SOCRATIC METHODISM: How many cows do I have? Why?

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

SURREALISM: You have two aardvarks. The government paints one green and requires you to take harmonica lessons.

TALIBANISM: You have two cows. At first, the government makes them wear burkas, but later shoots them because "they are Hindu religious symbols."

i suggest you click on stalin's regime, and see how nice he was!

------------------
[ Dmitry Smirnov ][ MSN/email: smirnov@hotmail.co.uk ]
http://dssweb.v27.net <-- go here for retarded flash movies! And stuff!
GET OUT OF MY TRIP JOHN LENNON!

quote:

---

DSS said:
Just about every leader who claimed to be communist has went on to kill, oppress and lead a totalitarian regime. I guess this (apart from american anti-communist propaganda) is the main reason so many people don't like the idea of communism

---

You don't know much about Economy, do you?
Well, I'm not going to argue about Economy because if you knew anything about it, you would not be thinking in communism as a plausible form of government, but if you want a moral reason for not supporting communism, you have already given it to yourself: The only way of imposing a comunist regime is by force because it is based in limiting individual liberty. Imagine that you lived in Russia in 1918 and you believed in God or you supported monarchy or you just wanted to be a doctor and government decreted that you MUST be a farmer or a rocket engineer... well, you would have had two options: shut your mouth or be killed.
By the way, those regimes were not comunist but socialist. If you read Marx, you would realize that socialist goverments were a previous step to get the ideal of communism were the government would be unnecessary (very down to Earth, don't you think?).

Regarding playing as a German soldier: I think if you have moral issues with this, you probably shouldn't play war games at all. Both sides in WWII committed atrocities, and even the allies had political motivations for injecting themselves into the conflict and drafting their citizens off to the slaughter. FDR tried every which way to provoke both Germany and Japan into doing something that would turn U.S. public opinion in favor of entering the war.

The way I look at it, war is best kept on a computer screen, period. So I enjoy the game without taking the theme too seriously.

Well, I'm probably forgetting a lot of government functions apart of the ones you have already mentioned, but is late and I cannot think clearly.
And excuse me for my bad English.

Bye.

|EDIT|
Hey, this is unfair, DoubleDragon has changed his post during my posting.
Well I'm not going to change mine now
|EDIT|

I studied utopian societies and the most succesful ones were communist. Usually though, the leader who was strong died and his successor was lazy or not effective and so the society collapsed.

on subject: i agree that it was the SS and some of the officers that were really nazis. most of the soldiers were just soldiers, as any american or british soldier is a solder. and i wouldnt say all the officers were bad because, heck, rommel wasn't too bad of a guy. damn effective, just on the wrong side. anyways, the germans had better equipment than the british or americans (at least 1944 and before) so its hard to resist using that lovely stg44 (or mp44 if you want to call it that).

on the other topic, it all depends on how you view "evil." some people see evil as relative, others as absolute. i personally think evil is an absolute measurement (and consequently, there's an absolute good). if you view evil as relative, you can make ANYONE evil or not evil. its a piece of cake. however, i think there's an overall consensus that people like hitler are downright evil. premeditated murder where the only "justification" is that the murderer hates (or dislikes) the person would be considered evil by me. stalin, despite his mental illness, i would consider evil, as well as hitler. who's more evil is a bit more difficult because stalin killed more (supposedly) but hitler did have some rather clear intentions. anyway, kore ga watashi no ni cento desu.

oh, and id much prefer capitalism over communism, at least controlled capitalism (anti-trusts). communism to me is just inefficient. if you're given the choice to spend 4 years in higher education to get a job as an engineer where you're going to work hard or quit school and get a job at the gas pump, but you knew you were going to get paid the same amount (or a highly adjusted amount in the case of socialism), why go thru the trouble of the education? there's no incentive. that profit incentive seems necessary to me. sure, you can call it greed, but there's still greed in a communist society. however, instead of opportunities as the outlet for that greed, you're left with force (or whatever other means) to secure "more." i have the same problem with socialism, look at countries like france (now you're going to have to excuse me if i am incorrect here, but this is what ive heard every now and then, from a poly sci prof as well) where the income tax is so high, people simply stop working at a certain point so that they won't reach the next tax bracket. sure, you can work a little more to get a little more, but suddenly your tax bracket jumps because you're now considered "wealthy" so you end up losing more. so they just stop earning money after a certain point and stop working.

okay, i put my two cents into the machine. still waiting for my drink.

------------------
Jonathan Nguyen
jnguyen327@gmail.com

On-topic: I don't really give a damn about which side I'm on. Tho I do tend to get placed on the Nazi side of things in E-T. o.O

Other-Topic: Hitler VS. Stalin, both dolts and should've been slowly tortured, then have each bone torn away with red-hot pinchers then thrown into a mob of hungry dogs. As for who killed more, I think Stalin.

------------------
VOIDSTUDIOS! Home to all sorts of Galaxy613 and CKarl stuff.

Sig's don't get old, they get outdated.

quote:

---

NWC - I could make an MMORPG in three lines, given I had a single DLL with the entire thing in it programed in a different language :P

---

I believe in moral absolutes and this affects how I view the role of government. If it is wrong for the individual to steal and murder, how can individuals delegate the power to steal and murder to a third party like the state?

Theft and murder constitute much of what governments do. War is one obvious example, since very few wars are truly defensive.

The welfare state is also built on legalized theft and murder. Property is taken from people who have done nothing to harm anyone and given to others to whom it does not belong. If the victims refuse to hand over the fruits of their labor to the state, they are imprisoned; if they defend themselves by taking up arms, they are ultimately murdered by agents of the state.

From a moral standpoint, who is in the wrong here? Who initiates force? Clearly, the state does so.

Socialism necessarily takes a moral relativist view. How can one say, on the one hand, stealing is wrong, but on the other hand, it is okay and even commendable for the state to act as the instrument of theft? God's commandment is "Thou shalt not steal." It is unconditional, which is why I suspect socialist countries have been so hostile toward organized religion.

Moral relativism is a way to excuse bad behavior when you think your intentions are worthy. It is just another way of saying the ends justify the means. Socialist governments (Soviet Union, PRC, etc.) killed millions of their own citizens during the last century in pursuit of lofty-sounding ideals like equality for all. This is what results when those in power place themselves above basic morality.

The way I see it is no person can claim rights for himself that he denies to others. If I can't steal your property, you can't steal mine. Both of us have the right to defend ourselves, by force if necessary, against theft and other attacks on our life, liberty and property. We may thus delegate this task to government. This is where the law derives its legitimacy -- from the natural rights of the individual.

Charity is commendable, but it must be voluntary. I may choose to give to others what is mine to give, but not take from others what is theirs. My opposition to welfare is not the giving, but the taking (which is theft).

Early on, the U.S. federal government was limited mainly to defensive functions and paid for mainly by a small excise on imports. This reflected a view that the government was a necessary evil and not an active force for creating utopia. Ever since we got the income tax, we've been on the path of socialism (warfare and welfare).

I LIKEZ TAH SHOOT ME SUM NAZIS

But seriously, I'll play as a nazi if it means more gameplay.

Sure the game might offend people with emotional ties to that war.
But then again people who lost a family member in a murder 'll probably feel the same about games like manhunt and such.

I am against the initiation of force. In your example of a terrorist who intends to shoot my family, it is the terrorist who initiates force. I would be in my rights to shoot him before he could harm my family.

In the example of welfare, it is the state that initiates force. This, in my opinion, is wrong. It is not insurance because insurance is a contract entered into voluntarily.

The fact that some people benefit from welfare does not make it right, in my opinion. If I were to smash all the windows in your house, the window manufacturer would benefit. That would not justify my actions.

If theft and murder are wrong (as I believe they are), then what gives anyone the right to decide when and how these actions are acceptable, and to force these conditions onto all of us? Who is so special as to be above the laws that govern us as individuals?

I believe we have a moral obligation -- not a legal obligation -- to care for those in need. The initiation of force is not charity, it is a crime.

The welfare state always grows, consuming more of the people's labor, destroying the freedom and wealth that truly help people out of poverty. And as we all know, much of the benefits go to special interests, not the poor.

I bet we could spend three days giving arguments in one or another direction and, in the end, everything would depend on "what we like the most".

Of course, I think that charity is not the best way to help people to help themselves but when I think in welfare I'm not thinking in homeless but mostly in healthcare and pensions for elder people.

Welfare cannot be supported from an economical point of view. If you increase taxes you will reduce labour supply and that has a negative effect on economy. But it can be supported from a moral point of view. You say that murder is wrong, theft is wrong... those are moral judgements and, although I share them, I also think that some rules can be broken to reach a higher objetive (and that doesn't mean that Maquiavelo was right, just that are things that are worse than others). Stealing is bad? Yes. Letting someone die is worse? Yes. Who decides what is worse? People, by voting. Do I think democracy is the best system in the world? No way, but in a modern country is the only valid system. If people voted tomorrow that black people should be killed, should I do it? No, because everyone has his own criteria and the merit of being good is to do what you think it is right no matter what happens to you.

If we got rid of welfare, sooner or later you would find people in the street dying (not only due to poverty but maybe because they have cancer or VIH or they are old and they have no family). If we must not harm the others, we cannot do it by omision. It would be bad to let them and government should take care of them (of us) in the same way they defend us from criminals.

I don't believe that not stealing is harming others by omission. That would assume government theft is the only way to help others. Clearly, this is false. We are each free to donate as much of our time, money and other resources to helping the poor as we wish. Surely you don't believe only bureaucrats and politicans care about others?

Government theft causes harm in itself. It robs people of the means to care for their own families according to their own plans. It reduces wealth and productivity that might have led to advances in medicine, technology and the betterment of society. Even the method of collecting taxes deprives people of financial privacy and treats them like criminals.

Consider that if government's duty is to protect us from theft, it cannot engage in theft. This would be contrary to its rightful purpose. Then everyone who wanted to steal would see government as the means to do so. It would become the safest and easiest way to live at the expense of others (and it has).

hehe... B.A was like.. "crazy fool!"

B.A rocks.

And since this thread doesn't seem to be able to get back onto it's original topic...

...here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head!