Oregon passes tax increases on corporations and the wealthy..

[PLC1]

The point remains, truth, facts, and reality are not dependent on your thoughts, feelings or beliefs regarding what you think the answer should be.

I can't argue with that.

The difficulty lies with knowing just what the truth, facts, and reality are, unless, of course, you're talking mathematics and established science.

Does god exist? It doesn't matter whether you say yes or no, he/she/they either do or do not regardless of what you or I or the Pope believe, correct?

 

[GenSeneca]

we had to agree that a crime had been commited

We do not agree. The forced redistribution of wealth is legal when sanctioned by the government. You should know that, you support it, and your side has sited the fact that it is legal in defense of your position.

Bernie Madoff was an example of someone who used force (fraud) without the sanction of the government in order to swindle 10's of millions from his victims. He was caught, faced a criminal suit in court, was found guilty, sentenced, and is serving 150 years in jail.

Franklin Raines was the CEO for Fannie Mae, a government sponsored enterprise. Under his leadership, Fannie Mae cooked their accounting books (fraud) and drove the company to financial collapse. Raines walked away from the GSE he drove into the ground with a golden parachute of 90 million dollars. He did not face a criminal suit, he was not found guilty of fraud, and he is not serving a jail sentence.

The difference between these men is the government sanction they had to operate. It is the same for a street thug and the average voter, both can rob a rich person and take their wealth but only the voter, who is sanctioned by the government, can do so legally.

It is not the freedom of citizens that we need to limit to correct this legal violation of rights, it is the power of the government that needs to be limited so that it is no longer legally allowed to violate the rights of any individual.

GenSeca,
Are you female as Citizen refers to you? I have no idea and I don't wish to address you incorrectly.
Mare

It must be due to my warm, cordial demeanor and all the pleasant exchanges I have with fellow forum members that causes people to mistakenly believe I'm a woman.

 

[GenSeneca]

The difficulty lies with knowing just what the truth, facts, and reality are, unless, of course, you're talking mathematics and established science.

We will run a deficit this year of roughly 1.5 trillion dollars, is that true?
Our national debt currently exceeds 12 trillion dollars, is that a fact?
Initiating the use of force is a violation of your victims rights, is that reality?

I would say that facts, truth and reality go far beyond mathematics and science... But that's just my opinion.

Does god exist? It doesn't matter whether you say yes or no, he/she/they either do or do not regardless of what you or I or the Pope believe, correct?

Realism is limited to the physical world and by all accounts, to my knowledge, God is said to exist in the spiritual or existential realm.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We do not agree. The forced redistribution of wealth is legal when sanctioned by the government. You should know that, you support it, and your side has sited the fact that it is legal in defense of your position.

Bernie Madoff was an example of someone who used force (fraud) without the sanction of the government in order to swindle 10's of millions from his victims. He was caught, faced a criminal suit in court, was found guilty, sentenced, and is serving 150 years in jail.

Franklin Raines was the CEO for Fannie Mae, a government sponsored enterprise. Under his leadership, Fannie Mae cooked their accounting books (fraud) and drove the company to financial collapse. Raines walked away from the GSE he drove into the ground with a golden parachute of 90 million dollars. He did not face a criminal suit, he was not found guilty of fraud, and he is not serving a jail sentence.

The difference between these men is the government sanction they had to operate. It is the same for a street thug and the average voter, both can rob a rich person and take their wealth but only the voter, who is sanctioned by the government, can do so legally.

It is not the freedom of citizens that we need to limit to correct this legal violation of rights, it is the power of the government that needs to be limited so that it is no longer legally allowed to violate the rights of any individual.


It must be due to my warm, cordial demeanor and all the pleasant exchanges I have with fellow forum members that causes people to mistakenly believe I'm a woman.

We have previously agreed that legal doesn't mean ethical. The crux of the this matter is that rich and powerful people can adjust the laws to their benefit and the poor cannot. Therefore the only countervailing force that they can apply is one of numbers in the voting booth. We have to sides to this issue and the rich side is winning (please note the increasing rate of wealth accumulation). And we do need to limit personal freedom of those who use their power to make the government enrich them. You talk as if the government wasn't made up of people, people who are routinely bought by the rich and powerful for their own greedy ends.

I am good with no one being forced to give up money to anyone else if there is a way to make that system work, but short of universal enllightenment I have no idea how to do that.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you want to talk about teachable moments, I'd like to talk about your habit of telling me what I think and who I am instead of asking me.

It does no good for me to ask since he has me on ignore.

Also, take note that nowhere in Zen's reply did he state his philosophical outlook in an attempt to prove that my analysis was incorrect. He simply stated that my assumptions were off base without offering evidence to contradict my evaluation.

 

[citizenzen]

The difficulty lies with knowing just what the truth, facts, and reality are, unless, of course, you're talking mathematics and established science.

Is it better to provide welfare to people or to let them find a way to make it on their own or suffer the consequences of they can't?

Obviously it depends on who you ask. The person dying in the street because an infection that started in their tooth and spread to their brain will give you a very different answer than the person who pulled themselves out of poverty and became a contributing member of society. Where's the truth there?

The greatest conceit is to think that there is a single truth to the complex issues we face. Instead of calling each other blind (a favorite pastime of members here) we should learn to appreciate the perspectives of those that see things differently from us. That doesn't mean you have to take on that perspective, you are more than welcome to keep the one you previously held. But summarily dismissing the perspective of others out of hand is a foolish and limited way to live and learn.

 

[GenSeneca]

We have previously agreed that legal doesn't mean ethical.

I'm glad you can agree that being legal doesn't necessarily mean that it is ethical, now if I can only get you to see that being legal also doesn't mean that something is moral or just.

The crux of the this matter is that rich and powerful people can adjust the laws to their benefit and the poor cannot. Therefore the only countervailing force that they can apply is one of numbers in the voting booth.

You just contradicted yourself and still managed to avoid seeing both the problem and the solution to the situation.

On the one hand you recognize that the rich can use their influence to adjust the laws in their favor and claim the poor do not have this advantage.

On the other hand, you say it's necessary for the poor use superior numbers at the ballot box - the unstated purpose for them to do so is to adjust the law to their advantage.

I am good with no one being forced to give up money to anyone else if there is a way to make that system work, but short of universal enllightenment I have no idea how to do that.

Through laws.

It is through laws that rich people can commit fraud and get away with it.
It is through laws that poor people can redistribute the wealth of the rich.

It is through laws that we can end the governments ability to sanction these violation of rights.

 

[PLC1]

We will run a deficit this year of roughly 1.5 trillion dollars, is that true?

It is true that whoever does the predicting has predicted a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Will that actually happen? Well, most of us believe it, but does that make it true? It is my belief, and I think yours as well, that the deficit is unsustainable, but does that make it true?

Our national debt currently exceeds 12 trillion dollars, is that a fact?

Now you have found a mathematical fact. The debt > $12,000,000,000,000, or the equivalent of 120,000 tons of hundred dollar bills.

Initiating the use of force is a violation of your victims rights, is that reality?

If the victim is a victim, yes. If the victim is trying to violate someone else's rights, and being restrained from doing so, then no, it is not a violation of his rights.

I would say that facts, truth and reality go far beyond mathematics and science... But that's just my opinion.

And you opinion could be right, but that belief doesn't necessarily make it true.

Realism is limited to the physical world and by all accounts, to my knowledge, God is said to exist in the spiritual or existential realm.

How can you know that god is not physical?

God either exists or does not exist, regardless of our belief. That is in accordance with the philosophy you have described, is it not?

Sorry about getting your gender confused. I'm not sure why I thought you were female.

You're not gender confused yourself, are you?

 

[GenSeneca]

If the victim is a victim, yes. If the victim is trying to violate someone else's rights, and being restrained from doing so, then no, it is not a violation of his rights.

That is why I used the word initiating, to begin, get going or originate, the use of force.

How can you know that god is not physical?

I never claimed I could.

 

[PLC1]

That is why I used the word initiating, to begin, get going or originate, the use of force.

OK, you got me there. If the victim is being forced to do something against his will, then his rights are being violated.


That is, if the victim has rights in reality, and does not simply believe that he has them.

I never claimed I could.

You posted:

Originally Posted by GenSeneca
Realism is limited to the physical world and by all accounts, to my knowledge, God is said to exist in the spiritual or existential realm.

So, my belief was that you were saying that god existed in the spiritual or existential realm. If that was not the reality, then my belief didn't change it, but you can see where I might have come to that conclusion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'm glad you can agree that being legal doesn't necessarily mean that it is ethical, now if I can only get you to see that being legal also doesn't mean that something is moral or just.


You just contradicted yourself and still managed to avoid seeing both the problem and the solution to the situation.

On the one hand you recognize that the rich can use their influence to adjust the laws in their favor and claim the poor do not have this advantage.

On the other hand, you say it's necessary for the poor use superior numbers at the ballot box - the unstated purpose for them to do so is to adjust the law to their advantage.


Through laws.

It is through laws that rich people can commit fraud and get away with it.
It is through laws that poor people can redistribute the wealth of the rich.

It is through laws that we can end the governments ability to sanction these violation of rights.

It's weird, you accept and acknowledge that the rich and powerful are well armed but you are adamant that the rest of us cannot use ANY weapon against them. No one should challenge the hegemony of the wealthy and powerful; maybe you should just state that right up front and we won't have to go through all these long exchanges of posts.

I have to assume that you are wealthy or hope to be, well good luck with that. Why bother to even discuss ethics if you only apply them to the poor? You've turned out to be fairly disappointing.

 

[citizenzen]

You've turned out to be fairly disappointing.

After all this time in this thread, I wouldn't necessarily describe my experience with GenSen as disappointing. It was an interesting point... the first ten times he made it... but then it just got... ummm... weird.

It's almost as if he thinks that by sheer repetition he'll get us to smack ourselves on the forehead and declare, "OMG! Do you realize that the 99th time you told me the same thing, I finally got what you meant!" It points to a lack of creativity, an obsessiveness that borders on... unhealthy.

I'm going to go one step further psychoanalyzing our dear forum member. It's pretty much a given that he's a difficult person to get along with... I almost guarantee multiple marriages... but I see something more. I see a willful child who learned to outlast his parents to get what he wanted... a person who learned that you could "win" many battles in life if you simply refused to give in. Eventually, he knows he can just wear his opponents down and thereby declare a "victory", albeit a hollow and meaningless one.

Am I getting close GenSen? You see, you're not the only one with a gift for knowing what's inside other people's heads.

Peace brother-man... I know you need it.

 

[GenSeneca]

It's weird, you accept and acknowledge that the rich and powerful are well armed but you are adamant that the rest of us cannot use ANY weapon against them.

Do you want to end their ability to legally violate the rights of others, Yes or No?

No one should challenge the hegemony of the wealthy and powerful; maybe you should just state that right up front and we won't have to go through all these long exchanges of posts.

Do you want to keep your ability to legally violate the rights of others, Yes or No?

 

[GenSeneca]

It was an interesting point...

It's too bad you have me on ignore, I'd be curious to find out what point you think I made.

I'd like to ask those of you in forumville to chime in, what point do you think I have been making?

Am I getting close GenSen?

Nowhere close, but his comments also were not meant to explain the philosophical differences between our opinions, simply a continuation of his attack on my character. My observations were about Zen's philosophical approach to politics and based on the statements he has made concerning the issue.

A question: If I really were difficult to get along with, if I actually did have multiple marriages, if I really had been a snot nosed brat to my parents, would any of that make my points on this, or any topic, any less valid?

The answer is no.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

This is a teachable moment, not for Zen who has me on ignore, but for those of you who seek to understand the underlying differences between individuals that lead to a fundamental problem with finding compromise.

To explain the significance of Zen's statement, we have to look at philosophy behind it.



Zen is an anti-realist. For him, truth, facts, even reality are all subjective concepts. Which brings us to another term that requires understanding before we can move forward, Subjectivity:



Because anti-realists believe that facts, truth and reality are all subjective concepts, independent of objective reality, and dependent on upon the individuals thoughts, feelings and beliefs, there is only one way in which the anti-realist may come to accept something as being factual, true or as a reality - by consensus.



To put this in practical terms, the realist holds that 2 + 2 = 4 because it is an objectively qualified truth independent of any thoughts, feelings or beliefs on the part of the individual and the answer to the equation is therefore a reality. Whether or not an individual is able to count, has any concept of numbers, and regardless of whether they think, feel, or believe that 2 + 2 should equal something other than 4, the fact that the answer is 4 remains a reality, it is always true.

In contrast:



To bring this back around and explain how it relates to my point about finding difficulty in compromise, I will refer to one of my substantial disagreements with Zen:

We have unfunded debt obligations of more than 100 trillion dollars. These are referred to as unfunded debt obligations because it is money that we have promised to pay out but are not yet obligated to begin paying. Our national debt is an example of money that we already owe, that we have already "paid" out but cannot cover, and that totals around 14 trillion. Our annual deficit is running around 1.5 trillion, the deficit is the difference between money we spent that year and what we had to spend that year, this difference is then added to the national debt.

As an anti-realist, who believes that truth, facts and reality are subjective and therefore dependent upon his thoughts, feelings and beliefs, Zen and I do not agree on reality. He does not accept as fact that we have unfunded liabilities, he does not accept as truth that they exist, he does not accept as reality that we will be obligated for their payment when the time comes.

In conclusion, and in reference to the comment I made earlier about compromise, when two people look at the equation of 2 + 2 and come to different conclusions about the answer, compromise is not only difficult, compromise on any level will necessarily lead to the wrong answer. If my answer is 4 and his is 5, his answer is wrong. If we compromise and agree that the answer is 4.5, we are now both wrong. Compromise has its place but when it comes to dealing with facts, reality and truth, there can be no compromise.

So to any realists out there who have read what I've had to say, the next time you think about compromising on any topic or issue, please consider whether or not you are dealing with an anti-realist, because if you are, any compromise will inevitably lead to the wrong answer.

Brilliant! I realize that I'm starting to sound like a sycophant, but Gen is bringing it to the table in a major way. It's like listening to Bill Buckley incarnate.