Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Things you dislike about your country.

Page 17 of 27 [ 431 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 27  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 1:23 pm

TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
The way I view it, I'd be fine with a randian world minus the initiation of force, if we're going to play the "who is strongest" or "who is smartest" game, I'll bring a gun, shoot you in the legs, take your money, and if you are worthy of having it, you'd be able to stop me.

It's like a pacifists natural selection.


Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?

Quote:
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

-Ayn Rand


Hence why I said and I quote "minus the initiation of force" meaning minus the BS she put in to prevent the truly strong from destroying the weak minds that followed her.


So, you'd be fine with a Randian world only if it allowed for crime and oppression?



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Jun 2012, 1:31 pm

JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
The way I view it, I'd be fine with a randian world minus the initiation of force, if we're going to play the "who is strongest" or "who is smartest" game, I'll bring a gun, shoot you in the legs, take your money, and if you are worthy of having it, you'd be able to stop me.

It's like a pacifists natural selection.


Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?

Quote:
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

-Ayn Rand


Hence why I said and I quote "minus the initiation of force" meaning minus the BS she put in to prevent the truly strong from destroying the weak minds that followed her.


So, you'd be fine with a Randian world only if it allowed for crime and oppression?


I'm fine with a world based on "survival of the fittest" only if I can play with a full box of tools. I see no reason to protect physically weak people, while making intellectually weak people victims, when you can make both groups victims and have the actually strongest people go on to succeed.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 1:31 pm

JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
it taxation is abolished the things taxes fund will either cease to exist due to lack of funding...or people will have to privately fund all those things and I am not sure that would be the best idea...


Aren't these "things" technically already privately funded, since all tax revenue is taken from private industry? Wouldn't it be more efficient to cut out the middleman (gov't)?


No because then buisnesses would have free reign to charge whatever they want for their products and refuse service to anyone who can't pay up. We don't need things like the fire department or social safety network ran that way....obviously it didn't work when they had it set up that way. There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.

And privately funded means privately owned...the money that goes into taxes does not still belong to those who paid it once they've given it over as tax money. Now is our government the best middleman? probably not but generally I think pure capitalism which is what we'd have without regulations is a bad idea.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 1:36 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.


Circular argument of the century. Your certificate is in the mail.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 1:38 pm

TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
The way I view it, I'd be fine with a randian world minus the initiation of force, if we're going to play the "who is strongest" or "who is smartest" game, I'll bring a gun, shoot you in the legs, take your money, and if you are worthy of having it, you'd be able to stop me.

It's like a pacifists natural selection.


Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?

Quote:
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

-Ayn Rand


Hence why I said and I quote "minus the initiation of force" meaning minus the BS she put in to prevent the truly strong from destroying the weak minds that followed her.


So, you'd be fine with a Randian world only if it allowed for crime and oppression?


I'm fine with a world based on "survival of the fittest" only if I can play with a full box of tools. I see no reason to protect physically weak people, while making intellectually weak people victims, when you can make both groups victims and have the actually strongest people go on to succeed.


No use of force = no victims

Win/win scenario.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 1:39 pm

TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
JWC wrote:
TM wrote:
The way I view it, I'd be fine with a randian world minus the initiation of force, if we're going to play the "who is strongest" or "who is smartest" game, I'll bring a gun, shoot you in the legs, take your money, and if you are worthy of having it, you'd be able to stop me.

It's like a pacifists natural selection.


Are you sure you understand what a Randian world would be like?

Quote:
The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

-Ayn Rand


Hence why I said and I quote "minus the initiation of force" meaning minus the BS she put in to prevent the truly strong from destroying the weak minds that followed her.


So, you'd be fine with a Randian world only if it allowed for crime and oppression?


I'm fine with a world based on "survival of the fittest" only if I can play with a full box of tools. I see no reason to protect physically weak people, while making intellectually weak people victims, when you can make both groups victims and have the actually strongest people go on to succeed.


If we instated survival of the fittest litterally, I doubt it would be the CEOs and multimillionares doing the 'surviving.' It would probably be the poor who are used to either being on the streets or having to get by with little and do physically draining work or activities(such as walking or riding a bike to get around). Just an intresting observation.

All the money in the world wont help them when sh** hits the fan.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 1:41 pm

JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.


Circular argument of the century. Your certificate is in the mail.


yes pick one little thing out of my entire post, take it out of context and pretend that was the only argument I made...very good, your certificate for missing the point ought to be on its way considering I belive this is now the second time.

Is it not true that even with regulation things can still go to sh*t? it would happen much quicker with no regulation though but that one thing was not the main point of the post like you seem to think it was.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 1:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.


Circular argument of the century. Your certificate is in the mail.


yes pick one little thing out of my entire post, take it out of context and pretend that was the only argument I made...very good, your certificate for missing the point ought to be on its way considering I belive this is now the second time.

Is it not true that even with regulation things can still go to sh*t? it would happen much quicker with no regulation though but that one thing was not the main point of the post like you seem to think it was.


What was your point, then?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 1:51 pm

JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.


Circular argument of the century. Your certificate is in the mail.


yes pick one little thing out of my entire post, take it out of context and pretend that was the only argument I made...very good, your certificate for missing the point ought to be on its way considering I belive this is now the second time.

Is it not true that even with regulation things can still go to sh*t? it would happen much quicker with no regulation though but that one thing was not the main point of the post like you seem to think it was.


What was your point, then?


In bold, pretty much everything except that one bit you responded to...that was just an observation that even with regulation things can still collapse at some point I was hardly suggesting both ways are equally ineffective

Quote:
No because then buisnesses would have free reign to charge whatever they want for their products and refuse service to anyone who can't pay up. We don't need things like the fire department or social safety network ran that way....obviously it didn't work when they had it set up that way. There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.

And privately funded means privately owned...the money that goes into taxes does not still belong to those who paid it once they've given it over as tax money. Now is our government the best middleman? probably not but generally I think pure capitalism which is what we'd have without regulations is a bad idea.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

06 Jun 2012, 1:58 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.


Circular argument of the century. Your certificate is in the mail.


yes pick one little thing out of my entire post, take it out of context and pretend that was the only argument I made...very good, your certificate for missing the point ought to be on its way considering I belive this is now the second time.

Is it not true that even with regulation things can still go to sh*t? it would happen much quicker with no regulation though but that one thing was not the main point of the post like you seem to think it was.


What was your point, then?


In bold, pretty much everything except that one bit you responded to...that was just an observation that even with regulation things can still collapse at some point I was hardly suggesting both ways are equally ineffective

Quote:
No because then buisnesses would have free reign to charge whatever they want for their products and refuse service to anyone who can't pay up. We don't need things like the fire department or social safety network ran that way....obviously it didn't work when they had it set up that way. There has to be some regulation in the economy or things go to sh*t though they can still go to sh*t anyways but you get my point.

And privately funded means privately owned...the money that goes into taxes does not still belong to those who paid it once they've given it over as tax money. Now is our government the best middleman? probably not but generally I think pure capitalism which is what we'd have without regulations is a bad idea.


How would they stay in business if they charge prices that no one can afford and refuse service to people? If regulation doesn't stop the economy from going to sh*t, then why is it being used as a tool to keep the economy from going to sh*t? Sounds like insanity to me.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 2:04 pm

JWC wrote:
How would they stay in business if they charge prices that no one can afford and refuse service to people? If regulation doesn't stop the economy from going to sh*t, then why is it being used as a tool to keep the economy from going to sh*t? Sounds like insanity to me.


Who says no one could afford it, it would just be the ones who cant that are screwed....that was a major issue with that example of the fire departments only helping the houses that paid up to that specific company. That was actually one of the reasons regulation was determined to be a good idea because the houses of the people who could pay ended up getting burnt down a lot to because of fire spreading.

And I didn't suggest it's a tool to keep things from going to sh*t, it makes things run better meaning things going to sh*t might be less likely and/or take longer. But then if something catastrophic like a zombie apocalypse happens for instance even the perfect balance of regulation and free market couldn't stop things from going to sh*t. Like I said I was making the observation a good system does not nessisarily prevent things from going to sh*t but a bad system will destroy itself just from not being able to meet the demands of the people under that system.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Jun 2012, 2:24 pm

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:
Quote:
TO ALL PROPONENTS OF RIGHT-WING LIBERTARIANISM AND MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS. YOU ARE NOT "RATIONAL". YOU ARE NOT "OBJECTIVE". YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT FROM MARXISTS. YOU ARE SIMPLY PONTIFICATING OVER A BUNCH OF RIGID ABSOLUTIST MORALISTIC BS THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD. NOT ONLY THAT, THE MORALISTIC BS OF MARKET FUNDAMENTALISTS IS THAT OF AN OBNOXIOUS THREE YEAR OLD SCREECHING OVER "HIS" TOYS IN THE SANDBOX. MINE!! ! MINE!! ! MINE!! !


Sounds like the rantings of thems that aint have.

Do you realize that this is a discussion forum and a discussion forum only and we are not deciding the fate of nations here?
Sometimes I really wonder............


I seriously doubt that Marshall is motivated by any so called class envy conservatives are fond of accusing those without of feeling. That charge of class warfare is leveled by the right when they don't want to address social inequities and greed by the haves.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I'm talking about how idiotic the broken record "taxation is theft" is. It's not an argument.

I'd also say it's not envy people feel, but fear. Fear that our country is going to go into decline due to the irrational and/or outright deceitful actions of the far-right. Things like claiming they are for balancing budgets while simultaneously pledging to cut taxes for the wealthy which will end up lowering revenue. It borders on absurdity.


Oh, I know that you were talking about the "taxation is theft" mantra, but Raptor's comment of, "Sounds like the rantings of thems that aint have," was an accusation that you were envious of those who have.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


People who are too dense to engage in real discussion must resort to personal accusations. Calling people who are legitimately fearful for their future "envious" is just a form of trolling.


I disagree so I must therefore be a "troll".
Doesn't matter that we on the right are concerned about the country falling financially on its ass you just want to spend more on social programs.
:wall:


I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

06 Jun 2012, 2:41 pm

I guess what astounds me about the argument over taxes is how people can be so sympathetic toward people who make millions, and who with even a 30% tax would still be rich beyond your and my dreams, while ignoring the plight of the poor. How can someone have more compassion for the rich than for the poor? I don't get it.

People sometimes go so far as to say the poor bring their problems on themselves, when in fact it's the unbalanced distribution of income that is the biggest cause of poverty. If a CEO is willing to live on 3 or 4 times the pay of the lowest paid workers, for what they consider their superior intelligence or selling ability, maybe that's getting close to equitable. But they don't, they're not content with that. They want millions more.

Work is work, effort is effort, and no one works 24 hours a day. If someone is willing to do the humble work that others don't want or that others think is beneath them, I think that deserves some consideration. In my perfect world no one would make some obscene, unreasonable amount of money they don't even have time to spend, or have to make up ways of spending, like helicopter ski trips, seven vacation homes, designer wardrobes and one face lift after another. Instead everyone who contributes would share in that, and the surplus would be put into infrastructure, into making the world better for everyone. We live in an abundant world, but you wouldn't know it to see how most people in the world live.

What does all this greed mean? It simply means that some people think they're better than everyone else, that they have a right to live off the labors of everyone else and live 1,000 times better while they're at it. That, my friends, is just sick. Yet we reward this behavior and protect them from paying their share of taxes, if they pay taxes at all.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 2:42 pm

Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:

I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.


It actually is trolling to make provoking comments in an attempt to piss of the other side, go ahead look up the definition of trolling. If it wasn't how you meant it then do tell us what you mean? But keep in mind there is no proof envy is what makes people unhappy with the system so it looks a lot like an accusation with no basis to stand on.

Your current position has no credit...no one said you are a troll for merely disagreeing, it was only suggested indicating envy is why people don't oppose taxes was trollish.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Jun 2012, 2:50 pm

SpiritBlooms wrote:
I guess what astounds me about the argument over taxes is how people can be so sympathetic toward people who make millions, and who with even a 30% tax would still be rich beyond your and my dreams, while ignoring the plight of the poor. How can someone have more compassion for the rich than for the poor? I don't get it.

People sometimes go so far as to say the poor bring their problems on themselves, when in fact it's the unbalanced distribution of income that is the biggest cause of poverty. If a CEO is willing to live on 3 or 4 times the pay of the lowest paid workers, for what they consider their superior intelligence or selling ability, maybe that's getting close to equitable. But they don't, they're not content with that. They want millions more.

Work is work, effort is effort, and no one works 24 hours a day. If someone is willing to do the humble work that others don't want or that others think is beneath them, I think that deserves some consideration. In my perfect world no one would make some obscene, unreasonable amount of money they don't even have time to spend, or have to make up ways of spending, like helicopter ski trips, seven vacation homes, designer wardrobes and one face lift after another. Instead everyone who contributes would share in that, and the surplus would be put into infrastructure, into making the world better for everyone. We live in an abundant world, but you wouldn't know it to see how most people in the world live.

What does all this greed mean? It simply means that some people think they're better than everyone else, that they have a right to live off the labors of everyone else and live 1,000 times better while they're at it. That, my friends, is just sick. Yet we reward this behavior and protect them from paying their share of taxes, if they pay taxes at all.


Very well said indeed, there is absolutley no justifiable reason for the gigantic rift between the rich and poor. Why should a single person have more than enough money for 100 people to live on? They are never going to spend all that....and I thought for the economy to run it helps if consumers buy products rather then filling rooms with cash all in an attempt to keep it in the wealthy families. And then having the government pumping out more money which causes inflation.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Jun 2012, 3:04 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Marshall wrote:

I wasn't talking about you in specific. In general accusing people of envy is a type of trolling regardless of whatever real ideological disagreements there are. I'm sticking to that. If you want to twist that into me calling you a "troll" merely for disagreeing with me then go right ahead. It only damages your own credibility. :roll:


:lol:
My credibility? Every time you go off on a rant you damage yours and give credit to my position.


It actually is trolling to make provoking comments in an attempt to piss of the other side, go ahead look up the definition of trolling. If it wasn't how you meant it then do tell us what you mean? But keep in mind there is no proof envy is what makes people unhappy with the system so it looks a lot like an accusation with no basis to stand on.

Your current position has no credit...no one said you are a troll for merely disagreeing, it was only suggested indicating envy is why people don't oppose taxes was trollish.


A bout 1/3 of the threads started, let alone the replies, could easily be interpreted as provoking (trolling). I see the left making more of these provocative threads and replies than anyone else.