Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[citizenzen]

I didn't deny the role...

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

Looks like a denial right there.

A rational answer would have acknowledged that it played a role, which you chose not to do.

yet another example of completely denying the validity of any point the opposition makes... ironically, the identical tactic being used by republicans in Washington.

It's no way to run a forum, much less a country. Both sides balance and compliment each other. I know you might have a hard time believing that, but the sooner "your side" accepts it, the better off this country will be.

Damn. That's just like, waaay to rational for this thread.

 

[GenSeneca]

yet another example of completely denying the validity of any point the opposition makes... ironically, the identical tactic being used by republicans in Washington.

No denial, my point is valid, we did not go to war for the purpose of ending slavery.

Perhaps you should try to make a point that is on the topic and in defense of your position regarding the forced redistribution of wealth.

You've yet to accomplish that feat.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

The rights of the racists were violated and they are still angry about that today, the civil rights protestors were mostly non-violent, but it was the LAW that forced the racists to accept black equality. You either don't understand or you are being disingenuous about the use of force. The Federal government using the National Guard to enforce integration violated the rights of people who did not wish to integrate. In this case YOU are acknowledging the necessity of the use of force. I'm saying the same thing you are, except in my case I'm saying that the public has the right to force the rich to part with a portion of their money.

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.

A semantic quibble that makes no difference now. The war took place and you were in favor of using force in that case just as you were in the case of the civil rights movement. So some force is okay if YOU agree with the cause, right?

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

You need to justify YOUR acceptance of Force too, Gen.

"Nolo contendre, de poohbah orobitz."

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No denial, my point is valid, we did not go to war for the purpose of ending slavery.

Perhaps you should try to make a point that is on the topic and in defense of your position regarding the forced redistribution of wealth.

You've yet to accomplish that feat.

Redistribution of wealth or redistribution of rights, either one requires force and you support one and deny the other. That's not rational and you have yet to support it in any way. You are real big on asking people to support their positions but you aren't too at it yourself.

 

[citizenzen]

No denial, my point is valid, we did not go to war for the purpose of ending slavery.

Perhaps you should try to make a point that is on the topic and in defense of your position regarding the forced redistribution of wealth.

You've yet to accomplish that feat.

You've yet to convince me that you're a human being. I beginning to think you're a poorly written program on an interminable loop.

Somebody please debug that thing. I'm afraid it's going to give my computer worms.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you advocating Gandhian civil disobedience to reform the system? Allowing them to gun us down in the streets like the Sunshine Mine Massacre?

If necessary.

Pony up here, Gen, give me the brass tacks of your plan, please.

Your side can round up the votes necessary to put a politician into power that will pass a law to take money from one group and redistribute that money to another (with a small administrative fee), under the pretense of might makes right. That is a considerable power.

What I am suggesting is for you to use that power for good, not retribution. Might can make justice. If your complaint, and rationale, for using the force of government against the wealthy is that they use the force of government against you, then you should use your power at the voting booth to vote in politicians that will eliminate the governments power to redistribute wealth in any direction. Vote in politicians who will create the necessary Separation of Economy and State and end the governments ability to violate rights for the benefit of some at the cost of others.

You cannot make a serious argument for why your rights should be protected when you're simultaneously making an argument for why the rights of others should be violated. Therein lies the contradiction in your theory of retribution:

Either you want the violation of your rights to stop, or you want them to continue so that you have an excuse to violate the rights of others.

Which is it?

 

[GenSeneca]

The rights of the racists were violated

It was not the rights of the racists that were being violated, they had no right to initiate the use of force and violate the rights of the protesters.

it was the LAW that forced the racists to accept black equality.

The law stopped the violation of rights that was taking place. That is a justifiable use of force, to end the violation of rights.

You are not proposing to use the law to end the violation of rights but to perpetuate it.

You either don't understand or you are being disingenuous about the use of force.

I understand the purpose of force and I'm being genuine as to my understanding of when and why it is legitimate for force to be used, to end the violation of rights.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your side can round up the votes necessary to put a politician into power that will pass a law to take money from one group and redistribute that money to another (with a small administrative fee), under the pretense of might makes right. That is a considerable power.

But isn't that exactly what happened when higher taxes were placed on higher income brackets? And you said that was wrong.

What I am suggesting is for you to use that power for good, not retribution.

Feeding the hungry and getting medical care for everyone is good, you are the only one who passing judgment on the intentions of ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED PASS THOSE TAX INCREASES. For my own part it's not about retribution, if I was going for retribution I would take all their money. The amount I would tax them will not even damage their extravagant lifestyles.

Might can make justice. If your complaint, and rationale, for using the force of government against the wealthy is that they use the force of government against you, then you should use your power at the voting booth to vote in politicians that will eliminate the governments power to redistribute wealth in any direction.

Good idea, but pollyannish in that my vote will never carry the weight of the rich people's money. This is a rigged system and I doubt that any voting will be able to fix it.

Vote in politicians who will create the necessary Separation of Economy and State and end the governments ability to violate rights for the benefit of some at the cost of others.

As far as I know there are no politicians like that. I vote carefully and am always disappointed.

You cannot make a serious argument for why your rights should be protected when you're simultaneously making an argument for why the rights of others should be violated. Therein lies the contradiction in your theory of retribution:

Either you want the violation of your rights to stop, or you want them to continue so that you have an excuse to violate the rights of others.

Which is it?

Until you defend your support of the use of force I will wait to answer this last paragraph.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It was not the rights of the racists that were being violated, they had no right to initiate the use of force and violate the rights of the protesters.

We're making progress. The racists had no right to use force so we were justified in using force to stop them. Perfect.

The rich people have no right to rig the political system to enrich themselves as they have done, so we are justified in using force to stop them from continuing and to reverse the self-serving laws that they have put in place.

The law stopped the violation of rights that was taking place. That is a justifiable use of force, to end the violation of rights.

You are not proposing to use the law to end the violation of rights but to perpetuate it.

Wrong! If we do nothing but remove the laws and things that let the rich rule the country, then I'm perfectly fine with doing that.

I understand the purpose of force and I'm being genuine as to my understanding of when and why it is legitimate for force to be used, to end the violation of rights.

I am as well.

 

[GenSeneca]

But isn't that exactly what happened when higher taxes were placed on higher income brackets? And you said that was wrong.

It is immoral and unjust.

Feeding the hungry and getting medical care for everyone is good

Not at gunpoint.

Good idea, but pollyannish in that my vote will never carry the weight of the rich people's money.

Your vote carries enough weight to pass taxes on the rich, so it clearly outweighs the rich peoples money.

As far as I know there are no politicians like that.

Which is why we need more Capitalists.

Until you defend your support of the use of force I will wait to answer this last paragraph.

The only justifiable use of force is to end the violation of rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

The rich people have no right to rig the political system to enrich themselves as they have done, so we are justified in using force to stop them from continuing and to reverse the self-serving laws that they have put in place.

The underlined part is correct and so that nobody misunderstands, I'm referring to the force of law, not violence.

The part in bold is where I have to disagree. If you are saying you are justified in reversing the flow of the forced redistribution of wealth, then you are once again claiming that two wrongs make a right.

 

[citizenzen]

You cannot make a serious argument for why your rights should be protected when you're simultaneously making an argument for why the rights of others should be violated.

Here's a question for you...

If you want to equate being taxed (wealth redistribution) as a violation of your rights, on par with violating other rights we normally hold dear, why hasn't this issue been taken to court and adjudicated in your favor.

You said earlier that our side had the power to elect officials who could change the system, well, your side has the wealth and the means to have challenged this in the courts. Since you feel that this is a violation of your rights, it is up to you to seek redress, and not up to us to do that job for you.

You might want to explain how this grievous wrong has persisted for nearly one hundred years if it were as obvious a violation of rights as you believe it is.

 

[GenSeneca]

your side has the wealth and the means

My side? I'm not arguing for the wealthy, I'm arguing for Individual Rights. The wealthy would have a great deal to lose if we ever passed a separation of economy and state, no more free rides on the government gravy train.

You might want to explain how this grievous wrong has persisted for nearly one hundred years if it were as obvious a violation of rights as you believe it is.

Because both the rich and the poor want to retain the ability to violate the rights of others for their own personal gain.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is immoral and unjust.

Not at gunpoint.

Now who is bringing in a strawman? I have never said anything about using violence. We have been discussing what happened throught the ballot box in Oregon.

Your vote carries enough weight to pass taxes on the rich, so it clearly outweighs the rich peoples money.

A tiny tax in one State, would you care to compare it to the billions given to the biggest banks and insurance companies?

The only justifiable use of force is to end the violation of rights.

In your very next post you said that force was NOT justified in reversing the laws and regulations put in place by the rich to funnel money up to them. What they have done is very similar to segregation, they have made the laws to favor themselves and now you are saying that the populace doesn't have the right to reverse those laws and end the unfair practices. Nice.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The underlined part is correct and so that nobody misunderstands, I'm referring to the force of law, not violence.

The part in bold is where I have to disagree. If you are saying you are justified in reversing the flow of the forced redistribution of wealth, then you are once again claiming that two wrongs make a right.

Why don't we have the right to end the laws and regulations they put in place to benefit themselves? Is it that you are taking my meaning to be that we should reverse the laws to bring the money to the poor people? That's not at all what I meant. I think we should end the rich people's self-serving laws and aim for a more egalitarian society.