Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

Sometimes force is necessary, isn't it? As you noted, at one time we had slavery and it took a devastating war to bring it to an end.

We didn't go to war to end slavery, slavery was ended as a result of the war.

A hundred years later is took the violence ridden civil rights movement to get equality for blacks.

The civil rights movement was non-violent, they didn't rise up with violence to gain their equality.

This is a hopeless philosophy, you are saying that we can never solve the problem no matter what we do. I don't agree with you.

Star Trek was a Utopian Socialist society, everyone had everything they needed and lived fantastic lives. The device that allowed that system to work was the "Duplicator", which created anything they wanted, out of thin air, with zero effort on anyone's part. Until mankind invents such a device, mankind will have needs that go unmet, no matter what we do or how much force we apply.

Your solution is to use force, to violate individual rights, to destroy humanity in the name of saving it, all in an attempt to evade reality rather than facing it.

Economic freedom and respect for individual rights is how America has become the envy of the world, more powerful and more wealthy than any other nation in history. Destroying our economic freedom and disrespecting individual rights will plunge us into the ash heap of history like every other failed collectivist society. The best chance the world has at filling as many needs as possible lies in the freedom and respect for individual rights that I advocate, not in the tyrannical oppression you advocate.

 

[citizenzen]

Geeze! Is that all this is about? You don't mind taxes, you just don't like all the things they go to? Well, join the club. Why didn't you just say so instead of going on and on about "force" and "injustice" stuff? That was all as clear as mud.

I'd like to see a system where the people had some say in where their taxes went. It's tax time again. Wouldn't it be interesting if 50% went to the government to decide how to apply it, and the other 50% I could choose where it would go? Unlike you GenSen, I wouldn't give the military one red cent. I'd give all my money to the poor, or to environmental causes... welfare mothers... abortions... global warming... etc.

But at least we'd both be able to walk away thinking we had more say in the process, and isn't that what this is all about? Man, I'm glad we could clear up that little misunderstanding. High five!

 

[citizenzen]

The civil rights movement was non-violent, they didn't rise up with violence to gain their equality.

Well, that's certainly the least intelligent thing you've said... in the last twenty minutes.

 

[citizenzen]

 

[citizenzen]

 

[citizenzen]

 

[GenSeneca]

Geeze! Is that all this is about? You don't mind taxes, you just don't like all the things they go to? Well, join the club. Why didn't you just say so instead of going on and on about "force" and "injustice" stuff? That was all as clear as mud.

First, I have said at least 3 times, maybe 4, in this very thread, that I was fine with paying taxes that went to services that protect my life, rights, and property. That's a tax structure for a mutually beneficial society.

Second, the other taxes, the ones that are designed as a redistribution of wealth, use force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others. Such taxes are immoral and unjust.

I'd like to see a system where the people had some say in where their taxes went.

If government collected taxes only on the services that protect your rights, you would have 4/5 of what you pay in taxes back in your pocket to spend on other things.

Unlike you GenSen, I wouldn't give the military one red cent. I'd give all my money to the poor, or to environmental causes... welfare mothers... abortions... global warming... etc.

You can donate that other 4/5 to whatever you like and everyone else would be free to do the same.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Civil Rights movement was non-violent...

Well, that's certainly the least intelligent thing you've said... in the last twenty minutes.

Another fallacious argument?

I guess when that's all you have, that's all you have....

Civil Rights and Non-Violence

At the heart of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s was the use of nonviolent direct-action protest, including the student sit-ins portrayed in FEBRUARY ONE. Inspired by the example of Jesus, and the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi during India’s struggle for independence, black church and community leaders in the United States began advocating the use of non-violence in their own struggle. Beyond spontaneous and planned student sit-ins, several organizations were formed to fight for civil rights using Gandhi’s model of nonviolent dissent and action. Three of the most influential groups—the Congress of Racial Equality, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee—were pivotal in bringing about social change in America.

 

[citizenzen]

I guess the dead and injured were comforted knowing it all happened non-violently.

 

[GenSeneca]

I guess the dead and injured were comforted knowing it all happened non-violently.

The Civil Rights movement was non-violent, it was their opposition that was violent.

Do you really think you can make a case that it was the Civil Rights protesters using violence, not their opposition, based on the pictures you posted?

 

[citizenzen]

Do you really think you can make a case that it was the Civil Rights protesters using violence, not their opposition, based on the pictures you posted?

Yeah... those lynched dudes really showed those mobs who was boss.

Violence occurred despite anybody's desire to change society non-violently. For some reason you couldn't agree with Mare's point, no matter have obvious it was.

And while it is simplistic to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, to deny the role is simply stubborn idiocy.

You know, there are moments (as fleeting as they may be) when liberals make valid points. If you insist on pretending they don't exist, then you encourage us to likewise ignore anything reasonable that rarely makes it past your fingertips.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yeah... those lynched dudes really showed those mobs who was boss.

Violence occurred despite anybody's desire to change society non-violently. For some reason you couldn't agree with Mare's point, no matter have obvious it was.

The non-violent protesters won out over their violent opposition. I'm the one here advocating non-violence, you two are the ones advocating for the use of force to violate peoples rights.

And while it is simplistic to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, to deny the role is simply stubborn idiocy.

I didn't deny the role, Mare confused cause and effect, I set her straight. We didn't go to war to end slavery and pretending that we did ignores history.

You know, there are moments (as fleeting as they may be) when liberals make valid points. If you insist on pretending they don't exist, then you encourage us to likewise ignore anything reasonable that rarely makes it past your fingertips.

I'll be sure to let you know if you make a valid point... Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

Still no defense of your position? No defense for the use of force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others?

Audemus jura nostra defendere

 

[citizenzen]

Still no defense of your position? No defense for the use of force to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others?

If that's how you choose to frame the issue, then I offer no defense at all.

In fact, I advocate for it. I vote for it... and I vote every time.

So sure, mark me down as a violator. Put me on your list. Whatever spins your propeller.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We didn't go to war to end slavery, slavery was ended as a result of the war.

A silly semantic argument, secession and economic system disagreements largely based on the difference between a slave and a budding capitalist system led to the civil war. Again, once you are in the middle of a problem casued by a group using for it can be necessary to use a countervailing force to bring the system back into balance.

As yet you have not explained how we are to get from where we are to where you think we should be. Please explain, how do you intend to wrest power from the current rulers and return it to the people?

The civil rights movement was non-violent, they didn't rise up with violence to gain their equality.

The civil rights protestors were mostly peaceful, yes, but they were met with violence that required the Federal government to deploy the National Guard to restore order and protect the black people and their supporters. But in the end Martin Luther King was still killed, as were many others.

Star Trek was a Utopian Socialist society, everyone had everything they needed and lived fantastic lives. The device that allowed that system to work was the "Duplicator", which created anything they wanted, out of thin air, with zero effort on anyone's part. Until mankind invents such a device, mankind will have needs that go unmet, no matter what we do or how much force we apply.

What hogwash, you mean that humans cannot take care of their own no matter what they do. Baloney, there are enough resources to meet the needs of all people IF SOME PEOPLE DO NOT GREEDILY TAKE MORE THAN THEIR SHARE. Since we know that people will take more than their share you appear to be giving up. This is almost a Christian perspective, the idea that we have to be rescued by something supernatural (Jesus or magic technology it makes no difference) or we are doomed.

Your solution is to use force, to violate individual rights, to destroy humanity in the name of saving it, all in an attempt to evade reality rather than facing it.

There is force and then there is force, not all use of force is the same. Even you agree with the necessity for some laws to protect us. Thus you also advocate the use of force.

Economic freedom and respect for individual rights is how America has become the envy of the world, more powerful and more wealthy than any other nation in history. Destroying our economic freedom and disrespecting individual rights will plunge us into the ash heap of history like every other failed collectivist society. The best chance the world has at filling as many needs as possible lies in the freedom and respect for individual rights that I advocate, not in the tyrannical oppression you advocate.

The economic freedom that this country started with is gone. Initially it was based on nearly unlimited resources and new unspoiled country to exploit after killing the indigenous population. But by the time of Lincoln's presidency he was able to see that corporations were a terrible threat because of their ability to accumulate power and money. Lincoln warned that we needed to limit corporate power. Dwight Eisenhower said something similar when he warned about the vast power of the military/industrial complex. Both men were right, power and money have been gathered by a few in their attempt to control everything. As yet you have made not one single comment about how you think we should deal with these people. They are certainly using force, how do you say we should reign in their power?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All the other comments aside, I think that not using force is a great idea, but I don't know how to do that in our situation.

What do I do when I get up tomorrow morning? I laid off all our our workers today, not because we don't have any work, but because the large corporation we have worked for has not paid us since November. We have no way to get them to pay us, so I have a lot of free time now.

I like your no force idea, but I'm waiting for you to propose something reasonable that we can do with it. Are you advocating Gandhian civil disobedience to reform the system? Allowing them to gun us down in the streets like the Sunshine Mine Massacre? Pony up here, Gen, give me the brass tacks of your plan, please.