Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

So you are a pacifist? Two wrongs don't make a right, so you cannot hit back even if someone hits you? That's what we're talking about even though you won't admit it. For a change of pace let's hear what you have to say about reining in the rich and powerful who have been preying on the rest of us.

And you don't answer questions because "...they would only give you an excuse to shift from defending your position to attacking mine." The best defense is a good offense. When you attack my position (laws are an attempt to legislate morality) but you refuse to defend your position on laws that you support suggests that you have no defense.

 

[GenSeneca]

The best defense is a good offense.

I take from your statements that you are done trying to defend your indefensible views.

 

[citizenzen]

One final thought before I leave this lovely little thread...

Just to prove to you what a liberal I am, I'm first going to apologize. I'm sorry that I've wallowed in personal prods, jabs and jokes. I've been in enough forums to know that it is extremely rare to actually change someone's opinion. All that really takes place is what we've seen in this thread: people merely parrot talking points and call each other "blind". While this proved entertaining for a time, the futility and wastefulness of it has become overwhelmingly apparent.

Everyone is not blind. It is in fact, just the opposite. Everyone sees truth according to their unique perspective. (See? Typical liberal.) Its time I stopped trying to change anybody's opinion, or belittle a viewpoint. Perhaps there will still be a role for forums beyond trying to bludgeon people intellectually... we'll have to see. But something has got to change... and the only thing I have any control over is myself... so I will change.

Peace out my illuminated brothers and sisters.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I take from your statements that you are done trying to defend your indefensible views.

Not at all, are you? We both agree that force is not the best method to use. You asked me what we should use instead and I gave you some examples of techniques used historically. You didn't even bother to acknowledge or respond to my suggestions. How about you? You have some non-force suggestions about how we get to the nirvana we all wish to inhabit?

Part of the miscommunication between us has been that I haven't seen you talk much about the abuses by the rich and powerful, it seemed that you were only focused on the "tax the rich" issue and were giving the wealthy abusers a free pass. If that's not the case then we may be in substantial agreement.

Two wrongs do not make a right, however if someone attacks you or your family you have the right to fight back with whatever weapons you have at your disposal. This is especially true in the political arena. Obie lied and continued serving the best interests of the powerful by continuing the war and bailing out the banks has crippled our economy but put billions into the pockets of the very people whose pockets are already overflowing. We need to do something about that--got a suggestion?

 

[GenSeneca]

We both agree that force is not the best method to use.

You said that if only people would simply choose to the live by your morality, then you wouldn't have to use force against them.

My solution is to allow people the freedom to choose by banning the initiation of the use of force, by limiting the government to the protection of our rights, that includes implementing a separation of economy and state, in the same way and for the same reason we have a separation of church and state - to eliminate the possibility of legislating morality, which is what currently allows any individual or group the capability of violating the rights of some for the benefit of others.

I haven't seen you talk much about the abuses by the rich and powerful, it seemed that you were only focused on the "tax the rich" issue and were giving the wealthy abusers a free pass.

What's the difference between your position and that of the 'abusive rich and powerful'? You need to recognize that you both advocate for the forced redistribution of wealth, you just want the redistribution to go in the opposite direction.

While you have tried repeatedly to characterize my opposition to the forced redistribution of wealth as advocating for the 'abuses by the rich and powerful', you are the one who has been busy agreeing with, and defending, their position. It is only due to your knee jerk rejection of anything I say that has thus far rendered you incapable of understanding this truth.

Two wrongs do not make a right, however if someone attacks you or your family you have the right to fight back with whatever weapons you have at your disposal. This is especially true in the political arena.

To further illustrate the point I made above, the 'abusive rich and powerful' would use the same argument you have just made to rationalize their use of force against you. Other than the direction, you would both be making the exact same argument - It's in retaliation, it is necessary, it is legal.

 

[citizenzen]

It is only due to your knee jerk rejection of anything I say that has thus far rendered you incapable of understanding this truth.

I believe get your point of view, but I go back to the question, "What society can you point to uses your method to sustain itself?"

Taxes have been around since at least 3,000 BC. The social order that you see everywhere today was built on systems of taxation. So if it were such a terrible thing, you'd think somewhere in the past 5,000 years somebody would have developed something better.

Taxes haven't impeded progress. Could you explain how in ten years mutually beneficial exchanges could have put a man on the moon? How would mutually beneficial exchanges rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? Please help me understand why we should scrap a system that works for the one you advocate?

 

[GenSeneca]

The social order that you see everywhere today was built on systems of taxation

I thought you were done posting in this thread... Welcome back.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I have never said all taxes should be eliminated. By pretending that I have, you have built a strawman argument then argued against it.

It would appear that you are not only incapable of defending your own position but equally incapable of arguing against mine.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You said that if only people would simply choose to the live by your morality, then you wouldn't have to use force against them.

It doesn't have to be my morality, do you have a better suggestion? I posted the best I could think of, how about you?

My solution is to allow people the freedom to choose by banning the initiation of the use of force, by limiting the government to the protection of our rights, that includes implementing a separation of economy and state, in the same way and for the same reason we have a separation of church and state - to eliminate the possibility of legislating morality, which is what currently allows any individual or group the capability of violating the rights of some for the benefit of others.

So would your separation of state and economy remove all controls on economic activity? How would the government protect our rights? When an economic entity like Union Carbide has a chemical spill in Bhopal, India how will the government respond if it is separate--as with religious entities--from the economic system? Please explain how this idea of yours will work.

What's the difference between your position and that of the 'abusive rich and powerful'? You need to recognize that you both advocate for the forced redistribution of wealth, you just want the redistribution to go in the opposite direction.

You were starting at a different place in the problem than I was. I was starting here and now where the powerful people own and run most of the country. You appear to be starting from a level playing field at some future point? Yes? No?

While you have tried repeatedly to characterize my opposition to the forced redistribution of wealth as advocating for the 'abuses by the rich and powerful', you are the one who has been busy agreeing with, and defending, their position. It is only due to your knee jerk rejection of anything I say that has thus far rendered you incapable of understanding this truth.

Please explain how I was defending the rich and powerful. Because I advocated using force against them? Alright, fair enough. How do we get from where we are now to the place where there is a level playing field?

To further illustrate the point I made above, the 'abusive rich and powerful' would use the same argument you have just made to rationalize their use of force against you. Other than the direction, you would both be making the exact same argument - It's in retaliation, it is necessary, it is legal.

We are in the middle of a war, you seem to be advocating that our side lay down their weapons and surrender. If that's not what you're saying then perhaps you could rephrase your position.

 

[citizenzen]

I thought you were done posting in this thread... Welcome back.

Nah... I decided I could maintain a zen-like attitude despite the atmosphere.

I have never said all taxes should be eliminated. By pretending that I have, you have built a strawman argument then argued against it.

It would appear that you are not only incapable of defending your own position but equally incapable of arguing against mine.

Same old GenSen. Speaking of atmosphere... could somebody crack a window?

ooOOOMMMmmmmmmmmm...

 

[ktucan1]

I have a question? What taxes would be acceptable and what would we apply them too in so far as spending went?

 

[Pandora]

I have a question? What taxes would be acceptable and what would we apply them too in so far as spending went?

I think everyone from the most poor to the most rich should pay 5% tax on all things they buy, not one dime on money earned.

We should be incouraged to work and earn money and save.

The money should go to protecting our borders, defending our nation, maintaining roads, and funding a LIMITED government much like the founders set up.

With all the money we would each have left in our pockets we could use it to prop up the programs that matter to us, for me it would be foster care programs and orphanages. Helping single parent mothers who chose not to abort and things like that. My money along with the other people who feel the same way as I do could do a great deal for kids.

Some other groups would have other programs that matter most to them.

and charity would go back to where it belongs, the private sector not the government.


I think 5 percent would easily cover the cost of federal government if it were ran as intended, I would be more worried on how to get back the 1 or 2 percent they didnt spend but I wouldnt mind if it were in a locked account that could only be used in the event of a serious emergency.

 

[PLC1]

I have a question? What taxes would be acceptable and what would we apply them too in so far as spending went?

The way to discourage something is to tax it. If we want to discourage people from making money, then the income tax should be raised. Of course, that could be somewhat counter productive.

The government needs money to operate, so some taxes are necessary. The question, then, is what needs to be discouraged? Tax that.

 

[citizenzen]

I think 5 percent would easily cover the cost of federal government if it were ran as intended...

How was it intended? And should that be the measure by which our government is sized?

Our Founders were not demi-gods... they were human beings, no more capable of knowing the "right" size of government than our contemporaries today.

 

[PLC1]

How was it intended? And should that be the measure by which our government is sized?

Our Founders were not demi-gods... they were human beings, no more capable of knowing the "right" size of government than our contemporaries today.

Our founders knew well the dangers of a powerful central government.

 

[citizenzen]

Our founders knew well the dangers of a powerful central government.

And yet they laid out a very ambitious role for their newly founded government. Let me remind you what the preamble of our constitution states...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

This is not a mission statement for a limited central government. Our Founders believed that government could be a force of progress and good, as indicated by the very mission they assigned to it.