Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[citizenzen]

You cannot defend your beliefs on any level, so you resort to fallacious attacks on my character.

BTW, it's a very human response to try to deflect blame and place it elsewhere. It's also a very common to lack self-awareness and to understand the motivations behind our actions.

You should thank me when I point out your shortcomings. It will help propel you along the way.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So for instance, you should be able to drive any speed you want, or as impaired as you want, so long as you don't actually hit somebody. Otherwise, the government is violating your rights.

Is that correct?

That's silly. Such hysterical statements are common from those who cannot otherwise defend their agenda.

People who drive drunk, are threatening others with deadly force, however unintentionally. A threat of deadly force is a violation of rights.

OK, remedial civics class is over for the day. Until the next time.

 

[citizenzen]

That's silly. OK, remedial civics class is over for the day.

See GenSeneca?

Even Little-Acorn understands why laws exist. And it isn't just because the big, bad, tyrannical government wants to spoil your good time. Maybe you should take one of his remedial civics classes. It sounds like you could learn a lot.

While I was out this afternoon, thinking about your desire to live free from laws, society and government, I realized that there already exists a sizable population who live the lifestyle you aspire to: the homeless.

Whenever you get fed up with having "the man" steal from your paycheck, tax your land, or tell you what you can or can't do, take solace in the fact that there's millions of other people just like you who've found relief from these restrictions. The IRS won't bug you anymore when you live in a drainage ditch and eat bugs for lunch. The best part is you'll be living the dream... you'll be free. Sorry I didn't think about this sooner. Times a wasting. I'm sure you don't want to miss another moment of freedom.

Write when you don't find work.

 

[dogtowner]

That's silly. Such hysterical statements are common from those who cannot otherwise defend their agenda.

People who drive drunk, are threatening others with deadly force, however unintentionally. A threat of deadly force is a violation of rights.

OK, remedial civics class is over for the day. Until the next time.

its actually the classic libertarian view.

my chef's knife is a similar threat of deadly force but I actually have to harm someone with it to be a crime.

people drive under the influence all the time and only occasionally is there ever an incident.

 

[Little-Acorn]

its actually the classic libertarian view.

A.k.a. the conservative view.

my chef's knife is a similar threat of deadly force but I actually have to harm someone with it to be a crime.

Nope. If you grab someone and hold your chef's knife to their throat, you have committed a crime by threatening them (violating their right to be free from undeserved threat). Even if you never actually touched them with the knife.

people drive under the influence all the time and only occasionally is there ever an incident.

But they are all committing crimes, see above.

There doesn't have to be overt physical harm, for a crime to be committed. Again, a deadly threat is also a crime, even if the threat is never carried out.

 

[dogtowner]

A.k.a. the conservative view.

no. some conservatives share libertarian views, others not and it varies by item.

Nope. If you grab someone and hold your chef's knife to their throat, you have committed a crime by threatening them (violating their right to be free from undeserved threat). Even if you never actually touched them with the knife.

did I suggest otherwise ?

But they are all committing crimes, see above.

There doesn't have to be overt physical harm, for a crime to be committed. Again, a deadly threat is also a crime, even if the threat is never carried out.

did I suggest otherwise ?

just pointing out that its not as you suggested above. its also a fine line between a potential crime and thoughtcrime.

 

[citizenzen]

its actually the classic libertarian view.

people drive under the influence all the time and only occasionally is there ever an incident.

Any single drunk or speeding driver may or may not get into an accident, but if we took away all speed limits there would be an increase in accidents. A reasonable person tries find a balance between risk and freedom.

Here's another example.

I personally think we should allow for polygamous marriages. I think it's up to each person to determine how many people they want to share their lives and property with. But today, most people would disagree, and state that the risk to the children of these relationships is too great.

 

[dogtowner]

Any single drunk or speeding driver may or may not get into an accident, but if we took away all speed limits there would be an increase in accidents. A reasonable person tries find a balance between risk and freedom.

Here's another example.

I personally think we should allow for polygamous marriages. I think it's up to each person to determine how many people they want to share their lives and property with. But today, most people would disagree, and state that the risk to the children of these relationships is too great.

I merely point out a different view based on the notion of prosecuting actual crime as opposed to potential one.

Pologamy does not support our socieety nor is it necessary as it was in the past when expading the population as quickly as possible.

But the laws are as they are.

 

[cdbussey]

Gotcha.

But it's still morning. Rub that sleep out of your eyes and have a second cup of coffee.

I think you need it.

I thought it was pretty obvious genseca was being tongue in cheek with the forcing every employee to take off 10% comment. Gotcha right back

 

[cdbussey]

So for instance, you should be able to drive any speed you want, or as impaired as you want, so long as you don't actually hit somebody. Otherwise, the government is violating your rights.

Is that correct?

Count me in; I say RIGHT! No victim, no crime. I DO object to being charged with a crime when I have not hurt anybody. I object to the GOVT being my accuser because there is no actual person to bring charges against me. **** YOUR GOD DAMNED GOVT CITIZENZEN. I'm not loyal to THAT govt. You can go to hell.

 

[GenSeneca]

Stop providing me so much ammunition.

Your persistent attempts to offer red herring fallacies in order to put me on the defensive only reveal your ineptitude in defense of your position on the topic.

Lets see if you can defend your position:

I don't mind paying taxes to help people less fortunate than myself.

In other words, you don't mind being forced to help the less fortunate.

Such laws necessarily force other people to also help the less fortunate.

I don't want to force people to do anything.

Yet you agree with levying taxes to help the less fortunate, which does force other people to do something. (Before you accuse me of Tu quoque, I'm not suggesting that your argument is wrong because you fail to act consistently, I'm saying your argument is wrong because it is immoral, unjust, impractical and unethical, even if it is legal, and you have yet to defend your position on any grounds other than legal)

Clearly you don't disagree that taxation is force, otherwise you would not have said:

...we as a society place consequences upon actions that are outside our laws....you run the risk of being caught and losing your freedom (of personal property) if you do.

Your only defense of such a position:

If it is within the law, then the minority has to suck it up and deal with it.

You have not argued that your position does not violate the rights of those who do not wish to be taxed for that purpose, only that it is legal.

You have not argued that your position does not force others to comply with your morality, only that it is legal.

You have not argued that your position is moral, ethical, practical, or just, only that it is legal.

Once I strip away all the emotional appeals, all the fallacies, all the rhetoric, all that is left is your position for what it really is: You feel justified in violating the rights of some, for the benefit of others, through the use of force.

Robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

The only difference between unjust taxation at the hands of the government and robbery at the hands of a criminal, is the law that makes unjust taxation legal.

 

[citizenzen]

Your persistent attempts to offer red herring fallacies in order to put me on the defensive only reveal your ineptitude in defense of your position on the topic.

GenSeneca,

As I stated before, street people probably don't pay nearly as many taxes as you do. If you want to avoid them, there's one avenue to take.

The problem is that you want both worlds: you want to live in society, while avoiding contributing to the social order that you enjoy.

You call that freedom. I call that immature, selfish and unrealistic.

That's the bottom line. If you want to enjoy the benefits that society offers, you've got to put something back in.

Simple concepts GenSen... it's unfathomable that you don't understand them.

Un-freakin'-fathomable.

 

[top gun]

That's the way to go Oregon!! Some of these other states in financial trouble should look to a similar solution..

I wonder why we don't see more coverage of this in the national media? Maybe because this vote doesn't fit in with the teabagger philosophy that the MSM has been romanticizing?



http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html

Nobody looks forward to tax increases... but the bottom line is if the cuts just simply cannot be made and still have a decent standard of services then you have to go where the money is and where it will hurt people the least.

This should come as no big surprise because almost everybody starts out with very little so they should be able to relate. A thousand dollars is a whole lot more important and necessary to a family making 50K than it is to an individual making over 250K.

 

[dogtowner]

Nobody looks forward to tax increases... but the bottom line is if the cuts just simply cannot be made and still have a decent standard of services then you have to go where the money is and where it will hurt people the least.

This should come as no big surprise because almost everybody starts out with very little so they should be able to relate. A thousand dollars is a whole lot more important and necessary to a family making 50K than it is to an individual making over 250K.

If you spread the increase fairly across the tax base then the burden goes from 1000 to 100 if you assume that 250k represents the top one percent of Oregonian taxpayers.

 

[GenSeneca]

The problem is that you want both worlds: you want to live in society, while avoiding contributing to the social order that you enjoy.

Because you are unable to defend your position, you have nothing else to offer but personal attacks.

Remember what Mare said about mutually beneficial exchanges? You should, you agreed with Mare that these were necessary for society, you even chided me for not understanding this simple concept yet you are the one who, so far, has argued against this concept.

I have no problem with mutually beneficial exchanges, I am happy to pay taxes for services that protect my life, rights and property - courts, police, fire, etc. It's the taxes that provide nothing to my benefit in return for my money that are offensive, and you cannot mount an argument as to why I should be forced to sacrifice for the benefit of another. That's all you have to do, make the case for why a society of mutually beneficial exchanges is wrong and a society that violates the rights of some, for the benefit of others, through the use of force, is right.