Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[cdbussey]

So, after blacktopping roads, government is basically worthless?

I personally don't even want them to do that. I want them to provide national defense. I figure you and me MAN can handle the manly duties regarding the day to day struggles of life. don't you?

 

[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?

So for instance, you should be able to charge somebody with a crime you feel they MIGHT have comitted (unless you stepped in) right? I say no victim no crime. I say you are infringeing upon my rights when you charge me for something I MIGHT have done. I say YOU are dangerous. You harm people every day by charging them with crimes based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. That should be a crime and you should be imprisoned.

 

[cdbussey]

....

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.

Your philosophy is a VERY DIRECT threat to my existence. Is that what you mean? Oh, no, bet you weren't talking about war. I feel VERY much threat from what you are saying.

I don't see how it is possible you could believe I'm not threatened.

I have driven under the influence. You are accusing me of a crime you wish my liberty to be deprived of me for right? I take that as a VERY SERIOUS threat to me. Not just me, you thereby threaten my entire family. I don't recognize your right to deprive me of liberty. You will want to backpeddle to law. That's what we're talking about dude, we're debating the law. I guess.

 

[cdbussey]

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.

Oh I get it. You're not a citizen, you're a serf. The law rules. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. That's a cowardly position by the way.

 

[cdbussey]

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.

I'm an old hippy, it's not that bad. I had fun. I can say I didn't abuse the system WHILE I avoided it. YOu CAN live in america HOMELESS.

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

I myself have seen no evidence whatsoever genseca is seeking ways to avoid taxation or advising others to do so. Has CITIZENZEN ever heard the phrase "taxation without representation is tyranny?". I by no means am defending genseca I speak for myself.

MINDLESS DRIBBLE, JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION. .

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, your entire post was one long ad hominem attack against my character and a complete misrepresentation of my views. You really need to learn to defend your positions on a subject without attacking the person asking you to defend them.

I simply used you as an example since you are the defacto spokesperson on this site for your particular philosophy.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You started off so nicely before you veered off into wealth envy but lets take a stab anyway.

Quite the opposite of wealth envy.

Bill Gates is a college dropout, not exactly good looking and the richest guy in the country. He embraces charity (very common among the wealthy), does not game the political system and is generally nice (even if you do not care for his products).

One example? A man who has parlayed his intellectual achievements into a vast fortune, and that's your only example? You are making my case for me.

We do not all have the same basic capabilities. Some people are smarter than others, some more industrious, and all have differing priorities.

But the world tells us that America has a very even playing field by their drive to come and compete here in droves. And the opportunity is the same way.

The world tells us? That's proof? Is that why we are spending billions killing people brown people in the Middle East? Is our "even playing field" the reason that gay people cannot marry? You're making my case for me.

Now not everyone aspires to improve their lot in life which is fine. What is not fine is wanting ones lot improves at someone else's expense and without ones own effort.

I find it is a very selective view of who seems to prosper and fail within this system given the same opportunity.

How much was your bailout? How many times did your Daddy set you up in business? How many times did your brother rig an election for you?

How many illegals have come up and made a fine life fopr themselves through hard work and sacrifice ?

How many have some from asia, africa, the west indes, and all the rest and done well ?

If it sucks so bad here why does everyone want to come ?

Because it's worse elsewhere that means that we don't have inequality here? There is an excellent book you should read (it has lots of pictures so it'll be easy) by Jacob Holdt, it's called AMERICAN PICTURES. Unwilling to read or study you will remain blissfully ignorant. Tut, tut.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

My argument against Collectivism has been that Collectivists seek a society that is not built on mutual benefit, they instead want to impose their Collectivist morality on all of society, by using force to make some sacrifice for the benefit of others. Rather than proving me wrong, you have verified every claim.

I guess that it's an either/or situation, right? Individualism or Collectivism? So a feudal society is Individualism as you promote it? The strong get everything they can take and they owe nothing to anyone? I think that many of the indigenous societies had neither collectivism or individualism as you seem to define them.

Here you freely admit that you are trying to impose your morality on all of society.

All laws are an attempt to legislate morality. Are you now arguing for anarchy? No laws about anything? Speak up my man, tell us how it should be.

Here you are saying you are justified in using force to redistribute wealth - for the common good of course.

Is there no "common good"? You have NO shared interests with the rest of humanity? Tell me, Gen, you do breathe air, don't you? So, unless you never leave your sanctuary, then you have at least a passing interest in the health of the people who you will interact with in public, won't you? Do you know why anti-biotic resistant TB is coming back so strongly?

And here you are, again, justifying the forced redistribution of wealth - forcing some to sacrifice for the benefit of others - which is not mutually beneficial.

As I noted, the wealthy are using force to maintain their power, why should not a countervailing force be acceptable? You are always arguing for protecting money, you are just fine with lying, cheating, and stealing for the sake of wealth conservation, but you rail against the idea of the democratic process forcing everyone to help provide for the common good (oh yeah, there is no common good, right?)

[Just out of curiosity, if you agree that forced redistribution of wealth is not the "best way", what do you see as the best way?]

Potlatches would be a good place to start. Ahereance to the teachings of the spiritual masters, a little enlightened self-interest, and the cultural recognition of our connectedness and the concept that life is more valuable than money.

It is the Collectivists who use the concept of Might makes Right to promote what they see as the highest good, a forced redistribution of wealth. The "rich" are a minority in society, a minority whose rights you are eager to trample because they have something you want and you feel justified in taking from them by the use of force.

Ok, lets review. You understand that the only societies that can prevent their own collapse are ones built on mutually beneficial exchanges.... but you don't support such a society... Instead, you support a society where the have nots "rape" the haves by using the forced redistribution of wealth, and you support this despite knowing such societies inevitably lead to collapse.

Thanks for proving me accurate in my statements on Collectivism.

It's weird how taking a pittance from vast wealth is "rape" but using wealth and greed to force the system into something that produces millions of homeless people, millions of starving people, giant ghettos of people with nothing but the clothes on their backs is just good Individualism. Or maybe it's Compassionate Conservatism, huh?

What you don't address is that there is enough for all on this planet, but wealth addiction has locked up so many of the resource that a third of the human race is in want while a tiny few percent of humanity have more wealth than they could ever spend. And YOU support them. You know, GenSeca, I've never seen you post a single compassionate thing (protecting wealthy people is not done out of compassion) about anyone. Have you no heart, no one to love, is there nothing about which you care except money?

 

[dogtowner]

Quite the opposite of wealth envy.

you may not want it all for yourself but you want it removed from those who earned it.

One example? A man who has parlayed his intellectual achievements into a vast fortune, and that's your only example? You are making my case for me.

The million or so millionaires created most years who were NOT born with silver spoons. You make no case at all.

The world tells us? That's proof? Is that why we are spending billions killing people brown people in the Middle East? Is our "even playing field" the reason that gay people cannot marry? You're making my case for me.

Poor tangents, at least try and make a case.

How much was your bailout? How many times did your Daddy set you up in business? How many times did your brother rig an election for you?

dont want to admit that people make their own lives in the choices they make ? and more pointless tangents.

Because it's worse elsewhere that means that we don't have inequality here? There is an excellent book you should read (it has lots of pictures so it'll be easy) by Jacob Holdt, it's called AMERICAN PICTURES. Unwilling to read or study you will remain blissfully ignorant. Tut, tut.

try not hiding in a library and see whats happening in the real world.

ask that chinese restaurant owner if he made it from the sweat of his brow or daddy.

I'm sure a few lovely pictures are nice but its no substitute for real life.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Oh I get it. You're not a citizen, you're a serf. The law rules. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. That's a cowardly position by the way.

Anarchists, who take the Might is Right philosphy to it's logical extreme. I'm sure it's fun when you are young and strong, when you have lots of guns, when you're winning, but it's not civilization.

I'm curious, Buss, if you signed a contract, would you honor it even if it turned out to be a detriment to you?

You drink and drive? What do you think would be suitable punishment if you run over someone's child and kill them? What if it were your child, same punishment? And what exactly would that punishment be?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

you may not want it all for yourself but you want it removed from those who earned it.

The Bankers EARNED those huge bailouts and the subsequent bonuses? Rich people as a general rule have family money, they didn't earn it, they inherited it.

The million or so millionaires created most years who were NOT born with silver spoons. You make no case at all.

And how did they make their money? Honestly? Through the lottery? Luck? A million or so people make themselves millionaires HONESTLY/ETHICALLY every year through hard work? Don't make me laugh, anyone can get rich if they have enough flexibility in the ethics.

Poor tangents, at least try and make a case.

Tangent, my ass. When the Pentagon spends more money than all the States spend on EVERYTHING, then that is a direct influence on the welfare of the American people.

dont want to admit that people make their own lives in the choices they make ? and more pointless tangents.

Of course people's choices make their lives partly, but when you get one of the bailouts from the public pocket, how is that a choice on your part? What? You didn't choose to get a bailout? Why, did you want to be poor?

The tangents were an example of George's life, he was rescued from his bad choices over and over again because his Daddy was rich and his brother was Governor of Florida. That's the point: if you have enough money you are insulated from your bad choices, bad luck, and outright stupidity often times.

try not hiding in a library and see whats happening in the real world.
ask that chinese restaurant owner if he made it from the sweat of his brow or daddy.
I'm sure a few lovely pictures are nice but its no substitute for real life.

I own and run my own business, I've never taken any welfare or unemployment in my life. An education is one of the things that separates me from people like you. I know from history that the things you advocate won't work, they never have, that just like in nature it is cooperation that makes the systems function--not rampant predation.

 

[GenSeneca]

You know, GenSeca, I've never seen you post a single compassionate thing (protecting wealthy people is not done out of compassion) about anyone.

Using force to violate the rights of one individual for the benefit of another individual is not compassion, it is immoral, unethical, impractical, and unjust.

You have not denied any of my statements because you cannot argue against them, you simply attempt to justify the violation of rights, rationalize the practice as necessary, and take solace in knowing the violations are legal.

 

[citizenzen]

Has CITIZENZEN ever heard the phrase "taxation without representation is tyranny?".

Yes I have.

I'm wondering if you've ever heard the phrases: city councilmen, aldermen, mayor, county supervisor, state legislator, governor, state representative, senator, president, et al.

It would seem to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word "representation". Here, let me refresh your memory...

Main Entry: rep·re·sen·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌre-pri-ˌzen-ˈtā-shən, -zən-\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : one that represents: as a : an artistic likeness or image b (1) : a statement or account made to influence opinion or action (2) : an incidental or collateral statement of fact on the faith of which a contract is entered into c : a dramatic production or performance d (1) : a usually formal statement made against something or to effect a change (2) : a usually formal protest

2 : the act or action of representing : the state of being represented: as a : representationalism 2 b (1) : the action or fact of one person standing for another so as to have the rights and obligations of the person represented (2) : the substitution of an individual or class in place of a person (as a child for a deceased parent) c : the action of representing or the fact of being represented especially in a legislative body

3 : the body of persons representing a constituency

— rep·re·sen·ta·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective
— rep·re·sen·ta·tion·al·ly adverb​

See? You have representation. I'm not sure how you could have overlooked that fairly obvious detail. Maybe it's connected to those old hippie days. Sometimes too much of a good thing... isn't so good.

I certainly hope that helps to clear things up.

 

[citizenzen]

You have not denied any of my statements because you cannot argue against them, you simply attempt to justify the violation of rights, rationalize the practice as necessary, and take solace in knowing the violations are legal.

GenSeneca, I actually sympathize with you. I cling to utopian ideals myself. I think that war is an obsolete and futile tactic clung to by idiots who haven't evolved adequately beyond our animal brethren.

So bless your little heart... you're just advocating a similar ideal when it comes to taxation. It's really just as precious and impractical as my desire to seek resolution through diplomacy instead of bombs and bloodshed.

Well aren't we just a pair... two dreamers who see a better way for humans to live. I tell you what, you join my quest for peace and I'll join you in advocating for mutually beneficial exchanges. We'll be like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza (I call dibs on Quixote!) tilting at windmills as social progress drags itself painfully behind us.

I'm so glad we could come to this understanding. I feel like Humphrey Bogart when he said to Claude Rains at the end of Casablanca, "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Group hug.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Using force to violate the rights of one individual for the benefit of another individual is not compassion, it is immoral, unethical, impractical, and unjust.

You have not denied any of my statements because you cannot argue against them, you simply attempt to justify the violation of rights, rationalize the practice as necessary, and take solace in knowing the violations are legal.

Your one-sided moral campaign is telling, GenSeca, you have nothing to say about the wealthy using the force of purchased legislators and courts to steal wealth from everybody else, why is that? We have two competing factions in this discussion and you only abhor the use of force by one side. Hmmm, got an axe to grind? Sort of makes you hypocritical doesn't it? I mean you only accept force used against poor people, but poor people cannot even use democracy to fight back against the rich and powerful. Is that not a violation of the rights of the poor people, isn't it immoral, unethical, and unjust? It IS practical, your rich and powerful constituency has amassed a vast amount of the world's wealth at the expense of others. Are you hoping to do the same?