About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Saturday, November 17, 2012 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed sometimes errors have wonderful results too! For example the invention of fudge was a botched brownie!
Ok so people that over indulged and now have type II diabetes would disagree but hey it spawned an entire industry!

It is a great thread, do not beat yourself up, you helped create some freat discussions so by all means make more "mistakes!".

Post 21

Saturday, November 17, 2012 - 10:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jules.

I'd like to think that I can churn out mistakes like nobody else does!

:-)

Ed
[truism: successful folks make the most mistakes]


Post 22

Saturday, November 17, 2012 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I must have missed something...what was the mistake???

Your poll question perfectly reflects the election we just held; how much should the rich pay?


What do you make of our POTUS, as the 1st thing he does after winning a second term, scurrying off to Burma/Myanmar for a confab with socialist musclemen who ran amok in a socialist pisshole?



Post 23

Saturday, November 17, 2012 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Nothing about this guy seems too unlikely to be true anymore -- this would include things like he is just some kind of a godforsaken Manchurian candidate and the Chinese, working with Radical Islam, are who got him elected. The Commies and the Islamofascists in temporary agreement to gang up on the capitalists and to split the spoils after that. Hey ... wait ... I've seen this kind of thing happen somewhere before ...

:-)

Ed


Post 24

Saturday, November 17, 2012 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
actually, Texas CAN secede - it was written into their condition for joining... am not sure if they're the only ones like that - seems one or two others have similar clauses...

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Sunday, November 18, 2012 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Why did he leave out Kampuchea/Cambodia? He could have participated in a lookback at the glory days of the Khmer Rouge, those rascally Agrarian Marxists who knew how to mix all that wholesome fresh air into their 'leaning forward' to bring about real 'change.'

Maybe he's just taking notes from the real meateaters of 'change' to see how its done when you mean it.

This would have been like FDR touring the camps in 1940 in some alternate whacky universe of 'change.'

Have you noticed how thoroughly vague all the articles on Burma have been? Vague talk about 'political reforms' ... with none of the details, and for sure, none of the history of Burma as a nation ruled by strong armed socialist generals run amok.

With some irony, one of Stallone's last movies from 2008 was called simply 'Rambo' ... and was based on the brutality of Burmese government troops implementing 'change...' An actor/director known most for 'Rocky' has provided more background on Burma than the sum total of every journalist mopping up behind the latest socialist pisshole to self-implode since. What shit he must have taken for bringing out that movie. I'm sure their approach was to laugh at him, which is the approach they would take today, too.

These are the thugs that Obama is going to go bend knee to.


(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 11/18, 7:05am)


Post 26

Sunday, November 18, 2012 - 9:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
re Steve's comment:

"I would have chosen item #0 if it had concluded like this, "All involuntary taxation is, at root, immoral, if it is in excess of the minimum amount needed to maintain the structures and processes that protect individual rights."

(It would also be immoral if it could be replaced with a voluntary form of government revenue.)"

A lot fewer words can be used to say this more accurately:

All involuntary taxation is, at root, immoral, because it is not needed to maintain the structures and processes that protect individual rights. It can be replaced with a voluntary form of government or private revenue.

Courts: If you think government-run adjudication processes further your best interests, pay an annual subscription fee (or a fee for service model). If you think all these courts are doing is shaking you down -- for example, if you run a business getting sued by lawyers for frivolous things -- why should you pay for a court in which those lawyers sue you, instead of subscribing to a private mediation or dispute resolution service?

Police: If you think a government-run protective service helps you, subscribe. If your experience with police consists of poorly-disguised shakedowns ("speeding" tickets for going 35 in a 25 MPH zone that could be driven safely at 45 MPH, for example), a private company or a shotgun might protect your rights better and cheaper.

And so on.

Post 27

Sunday, November 18, 2012 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, you referred to my statement saying:
A lot fewer words can be used to say this more accurately:

All involuntary taxation is, at root, immoral, because it is not needed to maintain the structures and processes that protect individual rights. It can be replaced with a voluntary form of government or private revenue.
But that is NOT an accurate rendition of what I said.

We have had this disagreement before. You are advocating some form of anarchy, or multiple governments, or competing sets of laws, etc. And I have argued again and again that these do not work. There must a single set of laws for a given jurisdiction. If those laws are carefully and reasonably written as objective laws that provide the best protection of individual rights - then any minimum taxation needed to support that government's structures is NOT immoral.

Personally, I believe that fully voluntary funding for a minarchy can be achieved and that is a goal to move towards and one that is both moral and realistic. But, having people shoot police with a shotgun because they believe the ticket they were given is a shakedown is not.

People already make contracts that call for private mediation - it is commonplace. But no one has the right to gen up their own court to handle a criminal charge against them, or the right, without a contract, to force someone to use a mediation system they choose if they have a disagreement. That's like some mafia goon telling you that if you don't like the extortion demands that he is making, you can appeal it to the Don.

And so on.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why did he leave out Kampuchea/Cambodia?


He didn't!

Post 29

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve said: 
Those who earn below 20% of the chosen number, and therefore pay no taxes, would not be able to vote.

I'd have to take issue with this, although I suspect you have some unspoken (unwritten, that is) qualifiers.  A stay-at-home parent earns $0 and pays no taxes, but certainly should not be denied his/her right to vote. There's probably others who would fall into that category.  Perhaps you meant a person who willfully chooses to be non-productive, but then how would you identify that person if not by the dollars earned?  You'd need a way to apply a dollar amount to productive, non-paying jobs...... like full-time parenting. 


Post 30

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Surely at least those who receive the major part of their income through government entitlements shouldn't be able to vote themselves increases in these same entitlements.

Post 31

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
People in prison should not be able to vote, nor should people on welfare. Why? Because they willl vote for more welfare!

Post 32

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Or you could just secure private property rights.
(Edited by Kyle Jacob Biodrowski on 11/19, 8:31pm)


Post 33

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Killing 2 birds with one stone. I'm game!

Post 34

Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
People in prison should not be able to vote,
This is regulated by states only, no federal regulation exists.  Some states allow it, others do not.  In states that do not, it seems that most allow restoration of voting privileges after certain requirements are fulfilled (i.e. no longer incarcerated, off probation, etc).  Seems common sense that a federal regulation is in order. 

nor should people on welfare. Why? Because they willl vote for more welfare!
I guess I'm an optimist as I disagree with this generalization.  Rather, I'm hesitant to make the generalization without supporting evidence. 


Post 35

Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 5:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kyle's option is the better one, securing property rights would make welfarism obsolete.

Post 36

Thursday, November 22, 2012 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re post #18:

"We are living in 20's Germany. Slightly different economic circumstances, same charismatic charlatan dynamic, pandering to the worst within the mob."

Actually, it wasn't until the early 1930s that the Nazis became more than just a minor, seemingly irrelevant party.

From Wikipedia:

"In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag. The highest provincial gain was again in Bavaria (5.11%), though in three areas the NSDAP failed to gain even 1% of the vote. Overall the NSDAP gained 2.63% (810,127) of the vote. Partially due to the poor results, Hitler decided that Germans needed to know more about his goals. Despite being discouraged by his publisher, he wrote a second book that was discovered and released posthumously as Zweites Buch. At this time the SA began a period of deliberate antagonism to the Rotfront by marching into Communist strongholds and starting violent altercations.

At the end of 1928, party membership was recorded at 130,000. In March 1929, Erich Ludendorff represented the Nazi party in the Presidential elections. He gained 280,000 votes (1.1%), and was the only candidate to poll fewer than a million votes."

Post 37

Thursday, November 22, 2012 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

Re your post #27 -- the statement you highlighted in grey was not an attempt to restate your thoughts (which I believe I understand, BTW), but rather to state my POV on what I believe is objective reality using similar phrasing.

Note, too, that the phrase "a voluntary form of government or private revenue" can refer to either minarchism or anarchism -- that is, minarchism does not require compulsory taxation. A minarchic government can be paid for entirely via user fees and other forms of subscription-based financing. It can even allow people to opt out entirely from paying for, or recognizing as legitimate, such a government, so long as they do not violate its laws and thus wind up subjected to its court system, or publicly proclaim the formation of a competing government.

The difference between such an extreme minarchical system and anarchism / voluntaryism would be that such a minarchy would use force to prohibit any competitors in the few areas of life that it claimed a monopoly over.

My apologies for not making this POV clearer, or if I inadvertently came across as confrontational, rather than my intent to state my POV.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim:

The social democrats were the polite cheerleader/enablers of the meat eaters(Nazis and commies)who showed up later, brushed the social democrats aside, and conducted their local turf war.

The social democrats helped unfetter their state; the nazis and commies were the inevitable result, the terminus of all that philosophical beach softening.

Our version of the social democrats are cheering on the unfettering of the state. Our version of economic stress is bringing on the begging for the same boots.

So actually, we're our version of Germany in the 20s. Our flavors of The National Party come in red and blue; brown is not available this time around. Yet.

Like, Americans on average are smarter, more enlightened, and better educated than Germans were in 20s Germany; on what evidence would be believe that? We're a nation largely of mindless consumers, driven to a frenzy of social alignment and conformity in thought, with even GOP candidates begging "No, let ME run the economy!"

We've already long accepted our version of soft-fascism, the cozy blending of the government with commerce, and just as there was no major party of individual freedom and liberty in 20's Germany to be found, so is the case today in America.

20's Germany was a precursor, an enabler of meat eating totalitarianism to come, the tribe run totally amok; America today is well on its way.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.