Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

By golly, I guess that makes me Rocinante.

 

[GenSeneca]

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?

I have a great deal to say about that and the moment you, or anyone else, makes an argument in favor of letting the wealthy trample the rights of everyone else, or some other argument that states any other individual or group should be allowed, legally, to trample the rights of any other individual or group, I'll be the first one to demand you defend your position, the first one to speak up for the individual rights of those who are seeing their rights violated at the hand of a policy you advocate. Until such time, you must defend the policy you are currently advocating in this thread, the forced redistribution of wealth.

Both of you, I'm including Zen here, have chosen to advocate for a policy that violates the rights of some for the benefit of others, through the use of force. I have asked both of you to defend that policy and the best you could come up with is that it is "necessary" and that it is "legal".

What people reading this thread should find most "telling" of your position, still including Zen, is that you both mentioned a society of mutually beneficial exchange as something that I didn't understand and do not support. I then showed that it is the policies that you advocate that are not mutually beneficial, at which point both of you attacked the concept of mutually beneficial exchange as impractical and idealistic. So when you thought you could use it against me, you were for it, once you realized you were directly arguing against such a concept, you had to discredit the concept you previously advocated.

One last thing about the collectivists concepts of how societies are organized, you both seem convinced that mutually beneficial societies cannot exist, that the only possible form society can take is one that allows the rights of some to be violated by force for the benefit of some other, and you both want to be part of the group doing the violating and not the group being violated.

You have completely dismissed the possiblity of a society that respects and protects the individual rights of every single individual, such a society is not only possible, it is not only moral, just, and ethical, such a society is the only practical formulation for a society to exist... As you pointed out, any other type of society is doomed to collapse.

If you like to see me argue against Fuedelism or any other system that violates the rights of some for the benefit of others... Then start a new thread and argue in favor of it or find someone who will. Advocating Fuedelism is no different than advocating for any other Collectivist policy whereby the rights of some are violated for the benfit of others and accomplished through the use of force.

Attempts to shift the conversation onto me, by making false statements in hopes that I will defend myself from the attacks, are nothing more, and nothing less, than attempts to avoid defending your position.

This is about you, still including Zen, forumulating a defense of your position.

Period.

Either you are capable of this or you are not. It would appear that you are not.

 

[citizenzen]

Either you are capable of this or you are not. It would appear that you are not.

One of the interesting aspects of any thread is seeing how the subject becomes illuminated and defined over the course of the discussion. Once it became apparent that you were arguing from an utopian ideal, any argument against that ideal becomes moot, especially when any sense of reality is discarded at hand.

Example:

GenSen: I believe in a society where every boy and girl should have their own pony.

Me: Do you really think that's practical? Where would children living in high rise apartments keep their ponies?

GenSen: Oh! So you believe in depriving little children of their hopes and dreams!

Me: Actually, I'm trying to point out some issues underlying your example. I don't think you're being realistic.

GenSen: I see you are incapable of defending your desire to steal hope and love from little children.

Me: That's not what I'm saying at all...

GenSen: I see you are incapable of defending your desire to steal hope and love from little children.

Me: If only you'd...

GenSen: I see you are incapable of defending your desire to steal hope and love from little children.

Me: Whatever, dude. ​

So that's where we find ourselves... incapable of moving this discussion forward. But at least we had some fun, eh?

Does this mean you won't be joining my peace movement?

 

[dogtowner]

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.

most of those bankers had the bailouts shoved down their throats. bonuses are contractural and rich people in this country as a rul did NOT get rich via silver spoon.

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.

Hard work and sacrifice. A dollar at a time.

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.

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?

You got a bail out ? The only people I know who got a bailout were former UAW workers.

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.

blah blah blah

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.

Cudos for your contributions to commerce ! Honest !

Dogs cooperate to manage their predation, ants too. The food chain predominates. They always work but sooner or later they go soft and the next one down obtains the top of the food chain.

 

[GenSeneca]

Once it became apparent that you were arguing from an utopian ideal, any argument against that ideal becomes moot, especially when any sense of reality is discarded at hand.

Appeal to ridicule: a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.

No one is asking that you argue against my views, quite the contrary, you are being asked to defend your own.

Forced Redistribution of Wealth: Force is employed to impose a collectivist morality on society whereby the rights of some are violated for the benefit of others and not for mutual benefit.

That is the reality of the policy you advocate and not one person has been able to argue against it. Not one person supporting the forced redistribution of wealth has denied that a Collectivist morality is being imposed, that force is being used, that rights are being violated, that some are benefiting at the cost of others. In fact, every attempt at defending that position has centered around trying to justify it as being necessary and/or legal.

The reason you find attempts at defending your position so futile is due to the fact that your position is indefensible. If you really want a challenge, talk to Palerider and argue in favor of abortion. I would enjoy seeing that exchange.

 

[citizenzen]

No one is asking that you argue against my views, quite the contrary, you are being asked to defend your own.

Again, on one hand you complain about force being used against you, but you don't hesitate to try to compel me to jump through your hoops.

I'll debate as I see fit.

I'm sorry that you don't want to see the fallacy of your argument. Very few people actually care about seeing themselves clearly... they prefer the illusion that they've nurtured over the years.

You can add yourself to that group.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'll debate as I see fit.

Which apparently doesn't lend itself to defending your positions, only attacking those of others.

 

[citizenzen]

Which apparently doesn't lend itself to defending your positions, only attacking those of others.

I have no position to defend. I will not try to argue against a fantasy.

 

[dogtowner]

I have no position to defend. I will not try to argue against a fantasy.

perhaps the most honest you have ever been here.

your world and world view is a fantasy and therefore indefensible so you don't even bother to try.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have a great deal to say about that and the moment you, or anyone else, makes an argument in favor of letting the wealthy trample the rights of everyone else, or some other argument that states any other individual or group should be allowed, legally, to trample the rights of any other individual or group, I'll be the first one to demand you defend your position, the first one to speak up for the individual rights of those who are seeing their rights violated at the hand of a policy you advocate. Until such time, you must defend the policy you are currently advocating in this thread, the forced redistribution of wealth.

We already have forced redistribution of wealth, the rich people have rigged the system so that the flow of money is constantly upward and you have had nothing to say about that. Your selective indignation is focused only on the democratic use of force to level the playing field and you give the powerful people a pass. It makes your whole argument sound disingenuous.

Both of you, I'm including Zen here, have chosen to advocate for a policy that violates the rights of some for the benefit of others, through the use of force. I have asked both of you to defend that policy and the best you could come up with is that it is "necessary" and that it is "legal".

I am advocating a countervailing force to balance the power of the wealthy. You refuse to discuss that. Again, that makes you look disingenuous.

What people reading this thread should find most "telling" of your position, still including Zen, is that you both mentioned a society of mutually beneficial exchange as something that I didn't understand and do not support. I then showed that it is the policies that you advocate that are not mutually beneficial, at which point both of you attacked the concept of mutually beneficial exchange as impractical and idealistic. So when you thought you could use it against me, you were for it, once you realized you were directly arguing against such a concept, you had to discredit the concept you previously advocated.

I don't believe that I have ever mentioned a "society of mutually beneficial exchange", do you have a quote?

One last thing about the collectivists concepts of how societies are organized, you both seem convinced that mutually beneficial societies cannot exist, that the only possible form society can take is one that allows the rights of some to be violated by force for the benefit of some other, and you both want to be part of the group doing the violating and not the group being violated.

You seem to have me confused with someone else, Gen, I do believe that a society can be developed that doesn't have to use force for some at the expense of others. But your appproach of only attacking the poorest and under privileged while ignoring the worst abusers of force in our society makes you look a trifle hypocritical.

You have completely dismissed the possiblity of a society that respects and protects the individual rights of every single individual, such a society is not only possible, it is not only moral, just, and ethical, such a society is the only practical formulation for a society to exist... As you pointed out, any other type of society is doomed to collapse.

I have not dismissed it at all, I just don't think that working on only one side of the equation is rational or logical or just or fair--all things that you have said you support. Prove it.

If you like to see me argue against Fuedelism or any other system that violates the rights of some for the benefit of others... Then start a new thread and argue in favor of it or find someone who will. Advocating Fuedelism is no different than advocating for any other Collectivist policy whereby the rights of some are violated for the benfit of others and accomplished through the use of force.

Your arguments have sounded like you SUPPORT feudalism in that you have been all about protecting rich and powerful people at the expense of the rest of us.

Attempts to shift the conversation onto me, by making false statements in hopes that I will defend myself from the attacks, are nothing more, and nothing less, than attempts to avoid defending your position.

I have not shifted the conversation one iota, you are the one with whom I have pm'ed, you are the one posting attacks on me, you are the one who has challenged me. And yet, even with your challenge to me you still refuse to answer valid questions--that weakens your position, it makes you look uncertain and unsure.

You have poked at me for my comment about legislating morality, but refused to justify your position in light of the fact that ALL LAW is an attempt to legislate morality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

most of those bankers had the bailouts shoved down their throats. bonuses are contractural and rich people in this country as a rul did NOT get rich via silver spoon.

Wrong on both counts. Are seriously saying that the government FORCED poor distressed bankers to take billion dollar bailouts? Are you on drugs?

Hard work and sacrifice. A dollar at a time.

Like TV preachers? Like Blackwater? Boeing? Lockheed Martin? Northrop Grumman? General Dynamics? Raytheon? All of these companies have violated the law and gotten big bucks despite that. The big guys get away with murder.

You got a bail out ? The only people I know who got a bailout were former UAW workers.

This is what I meant about an education, you apparently don't know that the vast amount of money in bailouts went to big banks, investment firms, and insurance company conglomerates.

blah blah blah

Another example of lack of education.

Dogs cooperate to manage their predation, ants too. The food chain predominates. They always work but sooner or later they go soft and the next one down obtains the top of the food chain.

Another example of lack of education. Cooperation is far more common in nature than rampant predation.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have no position to defend.

You do support the forced redistribution of wealth, so a more accurate statement would be you have no defense of your position.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You do support the forced redistribution of wealth, so a more accurate statement would be you have no defense of your position.

I have to assume that you don't have a defense either then because you seem to support the rich and powerful using their money and influence to rig the system for their benefit at the expense of all the rest of us.

Clement Attlee had a good comment on this subject: "No social system in any country will bring us happiness, health, and prosperity unless it is inspired by something greater than materialism."

"Privilege, almost by definition, requires that someone pay the price for its enjoyment." Paula Ross

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't believe that I have ever mentioned a "society of mutually beneficial exchange", do you have a quote?

Sure do:

Human culture developed by people working together for their mutual benefit, and every culture that has relied on the strong raping the weak for profit has collapsed in short order.

You have not been arguing for a society of mutual benefit, instead you have been arguing for the other kind, which you admit leads to collapse.

We already have forced redistribution of wealth, the rich people have rigged the system so that the flow of money is constantly upward and you have had nothing to say about that.

Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.

If you have been paying any attention at all to my statements on the issue, it doesn't matter whether the violations are bottom to top, or top to bottom:

I do not support the use of force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others.

I do believe that a society can be developed that doesn't have to use force for some at the expense of others.

It's called Capitalism. Limiting government to protecting our rights and setting in place a separation of economy and state will eliminate the practice of people, and government, violating the rights of some for the benefit of others.

But your appproach of only attacking the poorest and under privileged while ignoring the worst abusers of force in our society makes you look a trifle hypocritical.

See above, I do not support the use of force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others.

Your arguments have sounded like you SUPPORT feudalism in that you have been all about protecting rich and powerful people at the expense of the rest of us.

Feudalism is a Collectivist ideology: The use of force is employed to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others. In case you have forgotten since reading the last line... I do not support the use of force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others.

I have not shifted the conversation one iota

You accusing me of supporting Feudalism does not equate to you defending your position on the redistribution of wealth. It is a Red Herring: an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue.

you are the one posting attacks on me, you are the one who has challenged me.

I have challenged you... To defend your position. You think that is an attack? I don't. I don't think the Mods would consider it an attack either but feel free to report me and we'll find out.

And yet, even with your challenge to me you still refuse to answer valid questions

My answers to your questions would not help you to defend your position, they would only give you an excuse to shift from defending your position to attacking mine.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have to assume that you don't have a defense either then because you seem to support the rich and powerful using their money and influence to rig the system for their benefit at the expense of all the rest of us.

Since you missed it, here it is again:

I do not support the use of force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others.

Hopefully you will have an epiphany and finally understand the gravity of my statements in opposition to the redistribution of wealth.

Epiphany: the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something.