Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[GenSeneca]

So is it ethical for some to hoard and while others want?

Convince me that it is ethical, moral, or just to use force and violate the rights of some for the benefit of others. If you think it is ethical, moral, and/or just to violate individual rights, then make your case.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We are supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. Republics protect the rights of the minority, Democracy is tyranny of the majority with no protections for the rights of those in the minority.

In a Democracy, if 51% vote to kill everyone named bussey, you die. In a Republic, it could 99% to your one vote and you would live, because the will of the majority is not allowed to violate the rights of any individual.

I posted that I didn't think that our country could be fixed by way of the ballot box, Gen, but you said we needed to just vote in more Capitalists. Wouldn't that be wrong according to your post here? That would simply be the majority voting in what they wanted and the minority of people who don't want to be disenfrachised and have their power grabbing put to an end will not be protected.

Onde again we run into the issue of ethics, what ethical value has the most importance?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking why it is not mutually beneficial for someone to give up something of value and get nothing, or something of less value, in return. If that is indeed your question, then you do not understand the definition of mutually beneficial.

If I do $10 worth of work at your home, say cutting your front lawn, and you give me $10 for my work, that is a mutually beneficial exchange. I got what I wanted, $10, and you got what you wanted, a fresh cut lawn.

If I do not work at your home, but you give me $10 anyway, and you get nothing in return for your money, that is not a mutually beneficial exchange.

There is the possibility that you derive some spiritual or emotional benefit to giving money away, in which case you would see giving me $10 and getting nothing in return as mutually beneficial, giving your money away made you feel better about yourself and you value that feeling more than you valued the $10.

However, once force is added to the equation, it is tyrannical for you to force people to sacrifice value against their will:

I show up at your house. I do no work. I demand $10. Whether or not you are willing to give me the money, Mare and Zen come out of the bushes and threaten to violate your rights unless you hand over $10. Now you are being robbed. It doesn't matter if you would have given me the money anyway, you no longer have a choice.

You should post the other side of the equation too so that you are pointing out the abuses on BOTH sides.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you want to define that as "immoral" that is your choice.

The violation of individual rights is immoral. We did not become the country we are today through the redistribution of wealth. If such policies led to greatness, then the old Soviet Union would still be around and it would be the greatest superpower the world has ever seen, far surpassing even us.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Once again you refuse to defend your own position and choose instead to attack mine...

As I have said from the begining, the fact that something is legal does not make it moral or just - GenSeneca

You are correct, that statement was not accurate because I did not make that statement at the very begining of the thread.

I should have said:

As I have said before, the fact that something is legal does not make it moral or just - GenSeneca

You still cannot argue against the truth of that statement.

Once again your only defense is the fallacy of Tu Quoque:

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

If a state wishes to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others, they can choose to do so but that doesn't make the violation of rights moral or just, only legal.

You still have no defense of your position as being moral or just, only legal.

You cannot rationally argue rights without addressing the ethical value thereof, because we know that some legal rights are more ethically compelling than others. You appear to arging ONLY for the rights of the greedy when you don't post the other side of the argument equally.

 

[GenSeneca]

I posted that I didn't think that our country could be fixed by way of the ballot box, Gen, but you said we needed to just vote in more Capitalists. Wouldn't that be wrong according to your post here? That would simply be the majority voting in what they wanted and the minority of people who don't want to be disenfrachised and have their power grabbing put to an end will not be protected.

Onde again we run into the issue of ethics, what ethical value has the most importance?

That is like saying it was unethical to try to end slavery, or segregation, or give women and blacks the right to vote... If you are standing up for individual rights, then you are doing what is ethical, moral and just.

If the "minority" that you're concerned about "disenfranchising" want to continue the violation of rights, then they are the ones being unethical, immoral and unjust.

Look closely at the post you were commenting on... Democracy, allows the majority to violate the rights of the minority and a Republic does not. If a majority votes to protect individual rights, they are not violating the rights of the minority.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I should have been more specific. You said the new taxes would not affect you as in individual because you don't make a quarter million a year. You said the taxes would affect your small corporation, so were you donating your corporate earnings to the school? Why don't you donate 100% of your corporate earnings to the school?


Are you suggesting that their needs outweighed your ability!?

Your idea that there will never be enough for everyone is a fallacy. Sorry.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Through force, cannot be solved through force. You conveniently leave that part of the equation off. You believe that it can be solved with force and I do not. Need will always exist and using force only makes the problem worse.

And yet you contradict yourself by acknowledging the necessity for force in the ending of slavery and in the need for laws. You can't have it both ways.
It may be trite and it's certainly a cliche, but, "There is enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed," is a truthful statement.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, where exactly do you think the money goes when you vote in more money for "the schools"

I know that you believe that none of it goes to schools, but I have not seen that demonstrated, I see schools being built and repaired, I know people who have been hired to teach, I see the buses running every school day. The money comes from somewhere.

 

[GenSeneca]

You should post the other side of the equation too so that you are pointing out the abuses on BOTH sides.

That was not what he asked me to respond to... He gave a specific example and I replied to it.

Give me an example of the other side and I'll gladly comment on it. Here, I'll even do so now:

Violating the rights of some for the benefit of others is not moral, ethical or just.

Now, whatever scenario you come up with regarding the rich violating the rights of the poor, apply my statement to it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Your idea that there will never be enough for everyone is a fallacy. Sorry.

Prove it.

 

[GenSeneca]

And yet you contradict yourself by acknowledging the necessity for force in the ending of slavery and in the need for laws. You can't have it both ways.

The use of force to end the violation of rights is the only justifiable use of force. You are not asking to end the violation of your rights, you are asking to be allowed to violate the rights of others.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending in 2007 was 3.8 million per second.

I did the military too... That is actually what made me interested in seeing what we spent on the welfare state. There was a claim that we spent $5,000 per second in Iraq, that claim was false. In order to get close to $5,000 per second, I had to include all defense spending, both wars, and all of the money we spend on our Veterans.

$5,000 per second on all military expenses.

$3.8 million per second on all entitlement programs.

Perhaps I will do another one and update the numbers to 2009 levels. I'm sure both will be considerably larger.

Well, Social Security should be taken out, the money for paying that was supposed to be invested or banked to pay back upon retirement, but the Congress decided that it would use the money instead, so they created the payment problem that we have now.

Perhaps it would be more accurate if we were to look at the money on a per/person basis. Divide up the money spent on social programs by the number of people who receive it, and they divide up the military spending by the number of people who benefit from it divided by the number of people killed and the ecosystems destroyed. Not to mention the grief of the families who's members have been killed or disabled.

What's weird to me is that all your arguments focus on denying power to the poor and to protecting the power of the wealthy. Why is that?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

The use of force to end the violation of rights is the only justifiable use of force. You are not asking to end the violation of your rights, you are asking to be allowed to violate the rights of others.

Brilliantly said.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Convince me that it is ethical, moral, or just to use force and violate the rights of some for the benefit of others. If you think it is ethical, moral, and/or just to violate individual rights, then make your case.

I already did to the best of my ability. I believe that a person's right to life is a higher ethical good than someone's right to hoard. How does one prove ANY ethical stance? It cannot be done.

So do you disagree with me? Do you feel that one's right to hoard is equal to or greatrer than another human's right to life?