Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can Romney/Ryan get elected? Options · View
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:55:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Garza wrote:
reality is the middle class is disappearing because the rich are taking all the money to off shore bank accounts and hiding it.


It's their money and you're trying to take it, making it too risky to invest here. You can't blame them for protecting their interests. They're not our slaves.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:06:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
1ball wrote:


Collectivism's delusion: Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no poor no more.

Reality: Try to tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there is no middle class


It must be a difficult task to educate us mere mortals to your absolute truths that you lord over us, but it must also be hard to be so humorless that you don't know when your being baited.

Going through life with blinders firmly attached and only having one ball would make anyone crabby I guess!dontknow
Kitanica
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:56:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States
Double post.
Kitanica
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 4:58:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States
1ball wrote:


It's their money and you're trying to take it, making it too risky to invest here. You can't blame them for protecting their interests. They're not our slaves.


So its okay to lie and embezzle money out of your home country for your own personal gain at the expense of your fellow man. so you can buy gold laced toilet paper? thankyou for humanizing treason in addition to what should be crimes against humanity.

Yeah sure I can't blame them for their interests... Their interests are bankrupting and exploiting the man with no voice and selling him back fractions of vowels. .001% of people have upward of 20-40 trillion hidden in offshores bank accounts and what does it do? collect interests? make them superior? It's wasted money they didn't earn. Yet millions more flood foreign shores each year. They treat us like we're the slaves. Maybe when we've all starved and died off the incable will be left with their fortunes and realize they can't eat money and survive on their own with no skills besides a silvered tongue.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:30:32 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:


Collectivism's delusion: Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no poor no more.

Reality: Try to tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there is no middle class.


okay, my turn:


You believe wealthy people have no obligation to society, and we should all just be apathetic to the natural gravitational pull of self-preservation and greed.

I believe there's a reasonable middle-ground that is attainable, that has been attainable in this country's past, and we're currently drifting further and further away from it.

You're too convinced of your own dogma to work your way out of that box, containing the same three bullet points over and over. I think some of it has merit, but I don't believe it to be the holy grail. I don't think any single theoretical position eliminates society's ills.
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:29:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Garza wrote:
So its okay to lie and embezzle money out of your home country for your own personal gain at the expense of your fellow man.


It is if they're trying to steal from me. Why shouldn't I be allowed to use their morality against them? Oh that's right. If collectivists didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all. evil4

Quote:
thankyou for humanizing treason in addition to what should be crimes against humanity.


You don't think it's treason or a crime against humanity to use government to force people to serve your purposes? If you can charge them with a crime, do so. If you make being wealthy a crime, you can expect poverty.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:32:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
It must be a difficult task to educate us mere mortals to your absolute truths that you lord over us, but it must also be hard to be so humorless that you don't know when your being baited.


Ah the old hide your bullshit behind baiting ruse. It's still bullshit.

Quote:
Going through life with blinders firmly attached and only having one ball would make anyone crabby I guess!dontknow


This must be the famous liberal compassion I've heard so much about. evil4

Do you poke fun at people with cleft palates or missing limbs? binky

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:53:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
You believe wealthy people have no obligation to society,


No obligation to a kleptocracy. No obligation to a society that does not respect individual rights, including the right to compensation for anything taken from them.

Quote:
we should all just be apathetic to the natural gravitational pull of self-preservation and greed.


That's certainly the attitude of those who receive coerced charity and don't have the decency to see it for what it is and express gratitude.

Quote:
I believe there's a reasonable middle-ground that is attainable,


There is, but you don't have the power to compel them to believe in the midpoint you believe in. They will decide how much charity they will give and to whom. Attempting to compel them via democracy only shows your willingness to use power against an unpopular minority.

Quote:
that has been attainable in this country's past, and we're currently drifting further and further away from it.


Yes, we're drifting away as a result of the increasing use of force (via democracy) to attempt to compel sacrifice.

Quote:
You're too convinced of your own dogma to work your way out of that box, containing the same three bullet points over and over.


You're just upset because your only defense against the live and let live morality is force that doesn't achieve the intended result.

Quote:
I think some of it has merit, but I don't believe it to be the holy grail. I don't think any single theoretical position eliminates society's ills.


Your belief is irrelevant. There is no moral obligation to involuntarily sacrifice something you have a right to. When you act upon your belief and employ a might makes right morality to compel sacrifice, you collide with the live and let live morality and that has negative consequences, making you your own worst enemy by authorizing those consequences. There's really no point in continually harping about the way things ought to be. You don't have the power to force that. You can either accept that you can't control the wealthy, and therefore can benefit by letting them be, or you can live without access to them and the benefits of investment in your society.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:20:42 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
I'd never deny that I can often be strident (to say the least!), but your beliefs seem so extreme and dogmatic sometimes.

Case in point:
Quote:

No obligation to a kleptocracy. No obligation to a society that does not respect individual rights, including the right to compensation for anything taken from them.


What you call kleptocracy are what others call taxation and social services, right? If not, could you please correct me on that?

When I think about the things you post, and believe it or not I do, I become convinced that you and I don't really live in the same world. I suspect this will prompt you to contend that you live in the real world and that I, conversely, live in some sort of collectivist paradise pretend world, but that's par for the course. Nevertheless, I can't relate to equating the concept of taxation with thievery, even though though there's obviously such a thing as too much taxation. Where that line is becomes the subject of ideological debate.

Quote:

There is (such a thing as a middle ground), but you don't have the power to compel them to believe in the midpoint you believe in. They will decide how much charity they will give and to whom. Attempting to compel them via democracy only shows your willingness to use power against an unpopular minority.


It's true that the midpoint is always in the eye of the individual beholder, but a consensus is, and should be, worth finding in society, for a common good. I'll grant that some believe that partisanship and money will always trump any sense of civic or patriotic responsibility, and have thus given up any hope for, effort toward, or insistence on it; I'm just not among them. Your belief seems to be that the mere expression of preference for middle ground is of no value. I disagree, and if I've come to understand your M.O., you don't care that I disagree, and at that point it occurs to me that you seem to be somewhat of a nihilist about things.

Quote:

Yes, we're drifting away (from a functional middle ground) as a result of the increasing use of force (via democracy) to attempt to compel sacrifice.


What would you propose we use as a means to adapt or change our own governance, if not by popular vote?

Quote:

You're just upset because your only defense against the live and let live morality is force that doesn't achieve the intended result.


You seem to lately be in the habit of thinking I'm upset when I'm not actually upset. I generally enjoy the back and forth, and regret that you've been given the impression that I don't. Maybe you're simply interpreting fundamental disagreement with another person actually being unhappy with the exchange, but either way, aside from the sometimes repetitive, monotone nature of your posts, it's been good, if only as a means to help me identify my own beliefs.

Quote:

Your belief is irrelevant.


Irrelevant to you perhaps, same as your beliefs are irrelevant to me, at least with regard to those that I don't subscribe to. Philosophically speaking, I suppose everyone's personal beliefs are mostly irrelevant to everyone but themselves, no? But it's still beneficial to share, I think. I suspect you agree with that, since you bother to frequently post in a forum section dedicated solely to expression of personal beliefs with regard to current events.

I am in some ways envious of the iron-clad degree of certainty with which you hold your (irrelevant?) beliefs. You believe yourself to be 100% correct about everything you advocate, while I don't think I'll ever feel that certain about every theory I subscribe to. Granted, your expressed beliefs here consist of about three principles, as far as I can tell, so maybe that doesn't encompass as much philosophical ground as it initially seems, but seeing things in stark black and white must make your worldview fairly simple to suss out.

Quote:

There's really no point in continually harping about the way things ought to be. You don't have the power to force that. You can either accept that you can't control the wealthy, and therefore can benefit by letting them be, or you can live without access to them and the benefits of investment in your society.


And conversely, there's no point in continually repeating your own avowed beliefs, yet you continue to do so. So why do you do it if you think there's no point to it? My purpose for asking is not to imply that you should shush and stop posting, but simply to remind you that expressing and discussing our own points of view is the entire purpose of this section of the forum. If it's become tiresome to you, perhaps you should take a break from it until divergent opinions grate on you less than they apparently do.

You're advocating for a better tomorrow same as I and many others are, if I'm to believe your previous claim to care for the well-being of this nation and it's people. Maybe you're just frustrated that we don't agree, but you don't seem like the kind that would honestly expect to convert people to your personal ethos on a sex site's message board.

It's a beautiful night. Cheers 1ball!


1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:53:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
We might finally be getting close to accord.

LadyX wrote:
I'd never deny that I can often be strident (to say the least!), but your beliefs seem so extreme and dogmatic sometimes.


Those who claim to hold the middle ground, while holding an extreme belief, frequently make such claims about their ideological opponents.

Quote:
What you call kleptocracy are what others call taxation and social services, right?


The individual taxpayer will decide whether he's getting his money's worth. He may not think he benefits directly from the government putting in a new federal highway on the other side of the country, but he may accept that the federal highway system is a good thing and he won't object to that being taxpayer funded. But what you call 'social services' are more correctly called transfer entitlements and more honestly called coerced charity, where wealth is taken from some and distributed to the cronies of the people in power. If the taxpayer believes too much of that is happening, he will rebel. No amount of sanctimony will convince him that he has a moral responsibility to those cronies. Those transfer entitlements will then result in debt, which devalues the entire society, causing further revolt. As much as y'all want to claim that the TEA party was all about racism, Taxed Enough Already was a message about spending.

Quote:
When I think about the things you post, and believe it or not I do, I become convinced that you and I don't really live in the same world. I suspect this will prompt you to contend that you live in the real world and that I, conversely, live in some sort of collectivist paradise pretend world, but that's par for the course. Nevertheless, I can't relate to equating the concept of taxation with thievery, even though though there's obviously such a thing as too much taxation. Where that line is becomes the subject of ideological debate.


Even if I agreed with you that coerced charity was morally acceptable, I would have to disagree that it is good policy. Our opinions on its moral acceptability don't matter. We can't force a moral code of involuntary self-sacrifice on the wealthy or the middle class by voting to transfer wealth from them to our cronies. They'll stop investing here and eventually the debt increases caused by continued social spending will result in economic collapse. You may not agree that we're in danger from runaway democracy, but your opinion on that doesn't matter, either. Each individual taxpayer/investor has their own point where they stop having faith in the value of cooperation. Then they decrease cooperation to a more comfortable level.

Quote:
It's true that the midpoint is always in the eye of the individual beholder, but a consensus is, and should be, worth finding in society, for a common good.


A common good includes not chasing away capital. Agreed? Not attempting to do without investor confidence. Agreed? We know that runaway democracy chases away capital. We know that runaway democracy increases spending and when coupled with a loss in investor confidence, it increases debt (in the absence of a balanced budget requirement). That's reality. We know that there is a tipping point where debt results in economic collapse and we know that we're approaching it and we know that there is no end in sight to how much voters will demand. The result is extremely predictable. There is no logically coherent theory for why economic collapse would not happen here. American exceptionalism is not proof against irrational fiscal policy. The only thing we don't know is when you will agree that runaway democracy at the federal level has occurred. $16T in debt isn't enough for you. Sustained growth of debt relative to the GDP isn't enough for you. High unemployment isn't enough for you. Reduced foreign capital investment isn't enough for you. Outmigration of jobs and capital isn't enough for you. Ignoring all of those is evidence of dogmatic faith in a right to have things your way.

Quote:
I'll grant that some believe that partisanship and money will always trump any sense of civic or patriotic responsibility, and have thus given up any hope for, effort toward, or insistence on it; I'm just not among them. Your belief seems to be that the mere expression of preference for middle ground is of no value. I disagree, and if I've come to understand your M.O., you don't care that I disagree, and at that point it occurs to me that you seem to be somewhat of a nihilist about things.


You confuse recognition of the effects of ignoring reality with nihilism. If socialism worked, despite its immorality, I would order more by the truckload. You can't argue with what works. But the rich and semi-rich shrug off the yokes you sanctimoniously cast onto them with talk of 'civic or patriotic responsibility'. A society that enslaves the productive and demonizes the profit motive is not worthy of 'civic or patriotic responsibility'.

Quote:
What would you propose we use as a means to adapt or change our own governance, if not by popular vote?


We're already screwed, due to the flaws in the constitution. Our only hope is for voters to get fed up with being in debt and to drag the Dem party away from socialism. Constitution 2.0 (google it) is a remote possibility, but I rate the breakup of the US into red states and blue worker's paradises more likely.

Quote:
You seem to lately be in the habit of thinking I'm upset when I'm not actually upset. I generally enjoy the back and forth, and regret that you've been given the impression that I don't. Maybe you're simply interpreting fundamental disagreement with another person actually being unhappy with the exchange, but either way, aside from the sometimes repetitive, monotone nature of your posts, it's been good, if only as a means to help me identify my own beliefs.


If you were not upset, you would actually come up with moral justification rather than sanctimony. But I think you recognize that you can't, so it causes you to call logically supportable reasoning 'dogma', rather than recognizing the futility of trying to convince me that repeating the experiment that always fails is worth doing.

Quote:
Irrelevant to you perhaps, same as your beliefs are irrelevant to me, at least with regard to those that I don't subscribe to. Philosophically speaking, I suppose everyone's personal beliefs are mostly irrelevant to everyone but themselves, no? But it's still beneficial to share, I think. I suspect you agree with that, since you bother to frequently post in a forum section dedicated solely to expression of personal beliefs with regard to current events.


Irrelevant because you have no ability to impose them to get your way. If there was some kind of hive mind where consensus ruled, your beliefs would not be irrelevant because they would have a chance of prevailing. But every time the belief in involuntary self-sacrifice has overtaken a society, it has proven to be unsustainable, except through conquest and empire building, until that became unsustainable.

Quote:
I am in some ways envious of the iron-clad degree of certainty with which you hold your (irrelevant?) beliefs. You believe yourself to be 100% correct about everything you advocate, while I don't think I'll ever feel that certain about every theory I subscribe to. Granted, your expressed beliefs here consist of about three principles, as far as I can tell, so maybe that doesn't encompass as much philosophical ground as it initially seems, but seeing things in stark black and white must make your worldview fairly simple to suss out.


There's nothing more stark black and white than a belief that you can succeed at imposing a moral code of self-sacrifice on people who believe they have no reason to accept it and have the means to prevent it.

Quote:
And conversely, there's no point in continually repeating your own avowed beliefs, yet you continue to do so. So why do you do it if you think there's no point to it? My purpose for asking is not to imply that you should shush and stop posting, but simply to remind you that expressing and discussing our own points of view is the entire purpose of this section of the forum. If it's become tiresome to you, perhaps you should take a break from it until divergent opinions grate on you less than they apparently do.


My point in persisting is that of seeing whether something new will come from those who persist in believing an irrational belief.

Quote:
You're advocating for a better tomorrow same as I and many others are, if I'm to believe your previous claim to care for the well-being of this nation and it's people. Maybe you're just frustrated that we don't agree, but you don't seem like the kind that would honestly expect to convert people to your personal ethos on a sex site's message board.


My personal ethos isn't the issue. I do enjoy pointing out the flaws in logic and I hope that actual flaws will be found in mine, so that I can reevaluate and refine. What I get here is not logic, but sanctimonious dogma. A hack economist named Paul Krugman, a darling of the left, told his readers of the two moralities:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=0

Of course, he stopped short of pointing out the economic consequences of subscribing to the might makes right morality employed by the left, but that's really the issue. The 800 lb. gorilla in the room is non-compliance by the people whose compliance you are attempting to compel. No matter how much "social justice" rhetoric you expend, employing your morality will not bring good results. It will bring debt growth and continued and increased alienation of the capital required to reverse it.

You're young and you have a kid. That should concern you. If you were rational, even though you believe the wealthy have a moral responsibility to be 'socially responsible', you would stop using government as a means to that end, because it will not work in the long term. It will lead to violent upheaval of some sort unless it results in non-violent revolution to end runaway democracy, which isn't historically likely. Instead, you would use non-governmental social pressure, boycotts and rewards to those who cooperate. You would pressure the Dems to remove socialism from their national platform and to restore meaningful competition for governance to the state level. Competition for governance is the only force that constrains runaway democracy and we want that at the state level rather than the national level. But all that would be futile unless enough others participated, so it might just be prudent to prepare for TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It).

Quote:
It's a beautiful night. Cheers 1ball!




Thanks for the drink. Unfortunately, it arrived past my bed time. I'll drink it tonight.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Kitanica
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:54:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States
1ball wrote:


You don't think it's treason or a crime against humanity to use government to force people to serve your purposes? If you can charge them with a crime, do so. If you make being wealthy a crime, you can expect poverty.



Who is forced to work for the government?
What are these double standards?
How is everyone living comfortably and working together for future generations and the betterment of society as a whole akin to "poverty?"

Please try again with this— logic of which you speak.
I can only aid you so much through this medium of Interweb.

It's 2012 dontknow Youd think we'd be advancing as a species instead of regressing to the starvation, economic collapse, and war of the past.


doctorlove
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:19:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/11/2012
Posts: 771
Location: United States
Are people crazy? YES! How can anyone after September 11, 2001 vote into office, a man of Obama's background? Muslim! The same group of people responsible for hating Americans and all Americans. They only co-exists with us today so that they can destroy Americans.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:34:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Garza wrote:
Who is forced to work for the government?


I said "force people to serve your purposes", not "work for the government". Taking from people without compensating them is forcing them to serve your purposes.

Quote:
What are these double standards?


That a person who makes more has to pay more for government services than a person who makes less is only the beginning. That it is wrong to discriminate against a popular minority but right to discriminate against an unpopular minority is another one. The list goes on.

Quote:
How is everyone living comfortably and working together for future generations and the betterment of society as a whole akin to "poverty?"


The methodology you use triggers the right to self-defense. It causes abandonment and non-compliance. It is morally equivalent to a Mafia protection racket. That creates poverty. The market does a better job of getting more people to live comfortably and work together for "future generations and the betterment of society as a whole".

Quote:
Youd think we'd be advancing as a species


I love the sanctimony. You must have been a nun in a past life. The closer we get to individualism, the more advanced we are as a species. Respect for the sovereignity of the individual enables the creation of wealth.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:50:42 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,451
Location: Cakeland, United States
Why does your 'proof' have to be in the form of a video of a nutjob blabbering incoherently? Why not an in-depth article using FOIA documentation presented to you to read about Mr. Romney's previous actions @ Bain & Company & later at Bain Capital?

HardNReady12 wrote:
I am willing to bet, $1000, that no one can find any video of a Bush 43, a McCain, or of a Romney voter making a statement that is as dumb as any of these voters, either now or 4 years ago after they voted.

Find me one video that shows a Conservative voter making a claim this dumb.


The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney
Government documents prove the candidate's mythology is just that

Anyone who would willingly vote for this thieving meglomaniac without knowing exactly what his past track records in business and corporate raping have been...

Is the same kind of imbecile who would cast a vote for another successful businessman like George W. Bush (who imploded several businesses) while escaping with golden parachutes each time.

That worked out so well between 2001-2009 didn't it? Two unending war$ of profiteering, the massive transference of wealth / raping the US treasury right in front of our eyes in September/October 2008 to top it off...after the security state imposition and introduction of the Patriot Act immediately following 9/11/2001. All that shit happened on Shrub's watch...on the Republican's watch. shaking

Yeah, let's go back to some more of that shit. Forget the recent past totally, blame it all on Obama & the Democrats of the last four years. Never mind that they started in a hole so deeply dug by the 2001-2007 Republican majority. tard

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital

How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill





If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:33:40 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
Quote:
Those who claim to hold the middle ground, while holding an extreme belief, frequently make such claims about their ideological opponents.


LOL. As far as I can tell, your definition of "extreme" is "doesn't agree with my dogma." But you don't believe mine either, so I guess that makes it even.

Quote:
No amount of sanctimony will convince him that he has a moral responsibility to those cronies. Those transfer entitlements will then result in debt, which devalues the entire society, causing further revolt. As much as y'all want to claim that the TEA party was all about racism, Taxed Enough Already was a message about spending.


I don't live in your world of absolutes with no shades in between. I realize that you think you're presenting mere facts against a mountain of sanctimonous apoplexy, and are therefore chopping wood toward a greater purpose, and I'll never convince you otherwise. The thing is, I wouldn't try. I can only present the things I believe, same as you. Chances are, we're both wrong about certain things, it just doesn't serve you personally to acknowledge that. But your sanctimony about others' sanctimony, and random individuals' interpretation of taxes as something other than civic responsibility is mostly irrelevant. Yes, if taxes get too high, people can leave. If things get so onerous that investment ceases to be worth the effort, then of course people won't invest near as much. If too much of anything happens without a counterbalance, things fall apart. Some say things are already falling apart, some say people are already leaving en masse, and not investing, etc. Where we are on that scale is what differs according to political opinion. You may believe we're at the precipice of a nightmare collectivist hell, as opposed to facing surmountable problems in the midst of vicious political gridlock, but your opinion doesn't matter. I don't believe things are as desperate as you do, and yes I know my belief and opinions are "irrelevant" LOL. So are yours. Welcome to the irrelevance party, where we both live on the internet. We can exchange invitations!

I'm not sure who here has said that the tea party is all about racism, other than to say that it wasn't me. I do know that the tea party contains more than a handful of uneducated redneck nativists, many of which are racist, and that the Republican Party uses the tea party to keep their crackpot faction in the fold yet officially at arms length whenever possible. But I think it's common knowledge that it started as an anti-tax, anti-Federal government movement, and remains that for most.

Quote:

We're already screwed, due to the flaws in the constitution. Our only hope is for voters to get fed up with being in debt and to drag the Dem party away from socialism. Constitution 2.0 (google it) is a remote possibility


Interesting. I'll check that out.

1ball wrote:

I love it when y'all get upset...

ladyx wrote:

Who's upset?

1ball wrote:

You're just upset...

ladyx wrote:

You seem to lately be in the habit of thinking I'm upset when I'm not actually upset.

1ball wrote:

If you were not upset, you would...


laughing8

Evidently it's important for you to think I'm "upset" by a conversation with you. By all means, feel free to imagine me in tears of hurt, discussing Mitt Romney with online friends. LOL. I wouldn't offer that to just anybody, just so you know.

Like you, I enjoy reading what everyone has to say on things. Unlike you, I don't deem everything different from my own views to be irrational on its face, and sometimes I learn a thing or two, even (as I said before) if it simply helps to galvanize what I thought to be true to begin with. Neither of us will convince the other, but for me, that's not really the point. I continue to be fascinated by just how differently people see the world, consume information, and even understand and trust different sets of "facts" to be true. It often means that two people can't even relate to one anothers' point of view, but it's no less entertaining.

glasses8
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:25:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
LOL. As far as I can tell, your definition of "extreme" is "doesn't agree with my dogma." But you don't believe mine either, so I guess that makes it even.


No, whether you want to believe it or not, slavery is extreme and advocacy of using government to require people to involuntarily fulfill your wants is advocacy of slavery.

Quote:
I don't live in your world of absolutes with no shades in between.


You live in a world where you feel the consequences of having an absolute belief in a moral right to require others to buy you stuff. Is there some shade of gray between a right to life and no right to life? Is there some shade of gray between a right to liberty and slavery? Is there some shade of gray between a right to freedom of association and no right to decide who to be charitable to?

Quote:
I realize that you think you're presenting mere facts


Actually, I'm also presenting valid, irrefutable logic. What I'm getting back from you is various forms of denial.

Quote:
against a mountain of sanctimonous apoplexy, and are therefore chopping wood toward a greater purpose, and I'll never convince you otherwise. The thing is, I wouldn't try. I can only present the things I believe, same as you. Chances are, we're both wrong about certain things,


If you can build a case that I'm wrong about something, then build it. If you can build a case that you are right about having a valid right to require others to buy you stuff, then build it. I build a case that you can't reasonably deny and you ignore that rather than confronting the reality of it. You don't want to believe that requiring others to buy you "social services" is an immoral act, but it triggers a right to self-defense that, even if you deny the validity of, results in higher prices, lower quality, fewer options and less opportunity for you to earn your way to a higher standard of living.

Quote:
But your sanctimony about others' sanctimony, and random individuals' interpretation of taxes as something other than civic responsibility is mostly irrelevant.


This is a claim you can't logically support.

Quote:
Yes, if taxes get too high, people can leave.


They can also choose not to work as hard. They can also choose to retire early. They can choose not to expand a business, not to start a business, or to shut down a business. They can preferentially buy from foreign suppliers. They can export jobs and capital to other countries. The can opt not to import capital. They can employ (legal) tax avoidance schemes and (illegal) tax evasion schemes. They can raise prices to cover additional costs (when elasticity exists). The can lower costs by cutting whatever can be cut, including staff and production. Productivity is the only thing that can truly be taxed and there are many ways to reduce productivity.

Quote:
If things get so onerous that investment ceases to be worth the effort, then of course people won't invest near as much. If too much of anything happens without a counterbalance, things fall apart. Some say things are already falling apart, some say people are already leaving en masse, and not investing, etc. Where we are on that scale is what differs according to political opinion. You may believe we're at the precipice of a nightmare collectivist hell, as opposed to facing surmountable problems in the midst of vicious political gridlock, but your opinion doesn't matter. I don't believe things are as desperate as you do, and yes I know my belief and opinions are "irrelevant" LOL. So are yours. Welcome to the irrelevance party, where we both live on the internet. We can exchange invitations!


So now your "moral" argument amounts to "we've gotten away with taxing people to buy stuff for our cronies so far, so we can add more." The reality is that there's no way to know how much non-compliance and abandonment has already occurred. Individuals make pocketbook decisions. They don't look for a "Made by union labor in the USA" label, they just buy what they like best for whatever reason. They also substitute, tighten their belts, sharpen their pencils, however you want to look at it, it all means a decrease in economic activity and that causes a further reduction in investor confidence. It is a government's job to maintain investor confidence and enable commerce. You blame vicious political gridlock for what is really a lack of confidence in the long term viability of the society as a result of the economic agenda of one side of the spectrum.

Quote:
Evidently it's important for you to think I'm "upset" by a conversation with you.


It's really just a way of noting that you become derisive and defensive and switch to irrelevant tactics when you realize you can't come up with a valid response.

Quote:
Like you, I enjoy reading what everyone has to say on things. Unlike you, I don't deem everything different from my own views to be irrational on its face,


If you have a rationale for your beliefs, please present it. How do you propose to overcome the live and let live morality by employing the might makes right morality? In the article by Krugman, he misses the point. Because he does not recognize the use of government to compel sacrifice as violent, he pretends that it is the GOP that is being violent (by opposing the confiscation of wealth earned).

Quote:
and sometimes I learn a thing or two, even (as I said before) if it simply helps to galvanize what I thought to be true to begin with. Neither of us will convince the other, but for me, that's not really the point. I continue to be fascinated by just how differently people see the world, consume information, and even understand and trust different sets of "facts" to be true. It often means that two people can't even relate to one anothers' point of view, but it's no less entertaining.


But it often reveals that you cling to beliefs you can't logically support. My beliefs trace back to rights that don't enslave and don't embrace double standards. You can't honestly assert the same.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Kitanica
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:04:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States



For ladyx



LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:36:16 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
I wonder how many times we can quote each other back and forth LOL. This is fun. Not for anybody else probably, but hey, my threshold is low these days.

Quote:

No, whether you want to believe it or not, slavery is extreme and advocacy of using government to require people to involuntarily fulfill your wants is advocacy of slavery.


Quote:
You live in a world where you feel the consequences of having an absolute belief in a moral right to require others to buy you stuff. Is there some shade of gray between a right to life and no right to life? Is there some shade of gray between a right to liberty and slavery? Is there some shade of gray between a right to freedom of association and no right to decide who to be charitable to?




Yes, there are all kinds of in-between conditions within the world we occupy. Your examples of "life/no life" and "slavery/liberty" are non-applicable at worst and needless hyperbole at best.

You don't understand this, though, and think this makes me a logic-deprived collectivist follower that wants people to buy her stuff. LOL. This is because there appears to also be no in-between to how you assess people you don't actually know. I can live with that, because I can't change how you view the world, it's issues, or even me.

Quote:
Actually, I'm also presenting valid, irrefutable logic. What I'm getting back from you is various forms of denial.


As a pure theory that is resolved completely within it's own set of rules and givens, you're absolutely right, it's irrefutable. In practice? All kinds of greys exist between the black and white: exceptions, qualifications, special cases, always this except for when it's that. Those things get in the way, to some degree, when your theories about collectivism etc. get applied. This is reality. You choose to view the world through your theories about collectivists alone, and that works for you. But they're rooted in absolutes. Taxation = slavery, apparently. In the world where I live, the equation is not that simple, if it's ever true at all.

But as I told you before, I don't think it's all without merit. But the bottom line is that I just don't share your points of view. You can't accept that, and choose to say that this means I'm a feckless follower in denial LOL, simply for having a difference of opion. People who think they know everything can't be convinced otherwise. You apparently have to label everything and everyone to make it make sense in your world, and I'm okay with that.

Quote:

If you can build a case that I'm wrong about something, then build it. If you can build a case that you are right about having a valid right to require others to buy you stuff, then build it. I build a case that you can't reasonably deny and you ignore that rather than confronting the reality of it. You don't want to believe that requiring others to buy you "social services" is an immoral act, but it triggers a right to self-defense that, even if you deny the validity of, results in higher prices, lower quality, fewer options and less opportunity for you to earn your way to a higher standard of living.


Build a case against your theory, which comes with ready-made answers to any challenge? No thanks. If this amounts to some sort of internet victory for you, over those dastardly collectivists, then congrats. LOL

Any theory's indestructible in and of itself, and frankly, the whole collectivist hyperbole is getting old. I like to poke fun at you about it from time to time just to break up your might-makes-right, slavery, hive-mind repetitive soundbites. So I guess I'll forgo "seeing the light", and continue on sending me and my family down the road to ruin. When the collectivists in beige uniforms come to tattoo my UN barcode into my neck and issue me a welfare bunk, I'll think of you and how right you really were. And it's those sorts of fantasies, along with the fun here in the Think Tank, that are far less boring than walking waist-deep into individualist dogma that I don't really believe in.


uh oh...wait for it....

1ball wrote:
Your beliefs are irrelevant


Damn. I hate it when that happens! evil4

Quote:

You blame vicious political gridlock for what is really a lack of confidence in the long term viability of the society as a result of the economic agenda of one side of the spectrum.



Political gridlock exists. The causes of it are many. You've stated an opinion, and I think we've established here that our opinions are irrelevant.


Quote:

It's really just a way of noting that you become derisive and defensive and switch to irrelevant tactics when you realize you can't come up with a valid response.


But that's the thing: I can't control what you deem "valid". You're so certain that you're right about everything, and have set your own rules for what is and isn't valid or irrelevant. I'm sorry that we aren't all going to adopt your rules. This must upset you. However, we're just not going to agree.

I give you facetious reactions sometimes because you're deserving of it, and sometimes I think my sense of humor goes over your head, but it's probably that I'm just not very funny in these threads. In general you do sometimes get sarcastic responses from me and others, and what can I say other than what you've advised others in the past: when you earn better, you'll get better.

In your mind, this happens because we bang our fists, unable to surmount your superior logic, and cannot handle the supermassive light of truth that we're being blasted with. In reality, it has little to do with your content and much to do with tone you tend to take. It can come off as very abrasive and arrogant. People's attempts to self-deprecate and make light are rarely reciprocated by you. And I'm sure that's okay with you, but just so you know it's less the message than the messenger's doing. No high horse here, sir: believe me, or ask around about me if you don't. It takes one to know one. evil4

It's the feel tank sometimes, baby. Lwinking You get what you demonstrate to deserve.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:05:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I wonder how many times we can quote each other back and forth LOL. This is fun. Not for anybody else probably, but hey, my threshold is low these days.


I didn't watch your Reagan video. I'm too close to my daily bandwidth threshold. If it had a point you'll have to synopsize it.

Quote:
Your examples of "life/no life" and "slavery/liberty" are non-applicable at worst and needless hyperbole at best.


More claims you can't logically support.

Quote:
You don't understand this, though, and think this makes me a logic-deprived collectivist follower that wants people to buy her stuff.


Denying the truth of what you advocate doesn't make it not true.

Quote:
As a pure theory that is resolved completely within it's own set of rules and givens, you're absolutely right, it's irrefutable. In practice?


Your belief that it is invalid in reality is not logically supportable.

Quote:
All kinds of greys exist between the black and white: exceptions, qualifications, special cases, always this except for when it's that. Those things get in the way, to some degree, when your theories about collectivism etc. get applied. This is reality.


You're welcome to try to make a case for that belief. Find a labor market that provides cradle to grave safety nets (that you would accept as adequate for all citizens) but that does not rely on the US as a safety net.

Quote:
You choose to view the world through your theories about collectivists alone, and that works for you. But they're rooted in absolutes.


Like your belief in an absolute right to whatever goodies a majority tries to plunder?

Quote:
Taxation = slavery, apparently.


Persisting in distorting by deliberately not understanding is decreasing your credibility. Taxation would be slavery if the taxpayer allowed it to buy him something of lower value than the price he pays. But taxation in excess of the value received is easily and profitably avoided. What you call the "civic responsibility" of paying taxes is only valid to the extent the taxpayer is getting his money's worth in government services. Anything beyond that is attempted enslavement and triggers the right to self-defense. You can't get around that, but the consequences of attempting to will show up in the economy, in the form of public debt, decreased investor confidence, higher unemployment, etc. Seriously try to guess who that harms the most.

Quote:
In the world where I live, the equation is not that simple, if it's ever true at all.


Apparently, in the world you live in, you'll do anything to avoid accepting a truth you don't like.

Quote:
the bottom line is that I just don't share your points of view. You can't accept that, and choose to say that this means I'm a feckless follower in denial LOL, simply for having a difference of opion.


It isn't "simply for having a difference of opinion." It's for persisting in clinging to an opinion you can't logically support.

Quote:
People who think they know everything can't be convinced otherwise.


What you're proving is that at least one person who thinks she knows just one thing that she can't conceive of disbelieving, no matter that she can't support it with reason, can't be convinced otherwise.

Quote:
You apparently have to label everything and everyone to make it make sense in your world, and I'm okay with that.


If a shoe fits you, why not wear it? You can convince me that it doesn't fit you by logically showing me how other people are morally obligated to buy you stuff. You tried a moral argument with "civic and patriotic responsibility" for some people to pay more to government than the value received, but if you went to a dealer to buy a car and he said that, because you have a job, you have to pay a 50% premium in order to decrease the cost of a car for his poor unemployed brother-in-law, would you buy it?

Quote:
Build a case against your theory, which comes with ready-made answers to any challenge? No thanks.


Having studied the problems of believing in invalid rights to an obviously greater extent than most people, I have anticipated many of the objections that will be raised, analyzed their validity, countered them with valid logic and come to a reasonable approximation of why they are unsuitable for public policy. That sort of problem solving is one of the things that minds are for. Without it, public policy discussions would be nothing more than your religion of coerced self-sacrifice shouting at their religion of coerced self-sacrifice and vice versa. That you would shun the opportunity to reason your way to a logically supportable conclusion about the rights you claim indicates that you understand their lack of validity.

Quote:
If this amounts to some sort of internet victory for you, over those dastardly collectivists, then congrats. LOL


Any victory would come when invalid rights are repealed, and that would be a victory for all, but that's not likely to happen as long as people believe they have a right to plunder and enslave.

Quote:
I don't really believe in.


Refusing to believe doesn't make beliefs not true. When a rational person is presented with an idea they believe to be false, they truth-test it. Can you honestly say you've done that? I'd like to review your truth-testing methodology. It appears that all you've done is reject what you don't like.

Quote:
But that's the thing: I can't control what you deem "valid".


Something either is or isn't logically valid. Your belief in a right to plunder isn't, unless you're hiding some logic that makes it so. You haven't offered any.

Quote:
You're so certain that you're right about everything, and have set your own rules for what is and isn't valid or irrelevant.


I haven't set the rules. They're set by reality. People will act in what they perceive to be their best interest regardless of your opinion of what their "civic responsibility" is. Ignoring that truth and voting to require them to buy you stuff is every bit as selfish as they are, but they have the benefits of both the right to self-defense and the ability to thwart you.

Quote:
I'm sorry that we aren't all going to adopt your rules. This must upset you. However, we're just not going to agree.


Your agreement is only required to the extent that you want to be prepared for the possible futures of runaway democracy. Simply clicking your heels together and chanting, "It won't happen." isn't a plan you should place much faith in.

Quote:
I give you facetious reactions sometimes because you're deserving of it, and sometimes I think my sense of humor goes over your head,


I detect it. I just choose to recognize it for what it is, a desperate attempt to continue clinging to a belief that you know is fundamentally morally flawed.

Quote:
In general you do sometimes get sarcastic responses from me and others,


People will try anything to avoid receiving a message they don't like and can't refute. Mockery, etc. are all signs of desperation. Cognitive dissonance, that feeling that you get when it begins to dawn on you that a belief you've firmly committed to is counter to your best interest, causes all kinds of rude behavior.

Quote:
In your mind, this happens because we bang our fists, unable to surmount your superior logic, and cannot handle the supermassive light of truth that we're being blasted with. In reality, it has little to do with your content and much to do with tone you tend to take. It can come off as very abrasive and arrogant. People's attempts to self-deprecate and make light are rarely reciprocated by you. And I'm sure that's okay with you, but just so you know it's less the message than the messenger's doing. No high horse here, sir: believe me, or ask around about me if you don't. It takes one to know one. evil4


Blaming irrelevant issues like the tone I take looks like just another desperate attempt to deflect attention away from your false belief. I think I've seen pretty much every tactic that people use to avoid accepting uncomfortable truths. It isn't just me. I've watched the irrefutable truths being delivered to collectivists by other individualists for years. I watched Dan Rather fall back on the indignant "I served in the military" defense when his objectivity was questioned. Focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the relevant are such common and obvious tactics that it's hard to believe anybody thinks they're actually valid in a Think Tank.

Quote:
It's the feel tank sometimes, baby.


A logically valid statement. Unfortunately, all too many voters use the voting booth as a feel tank.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Frank
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:13:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2011
Posts: 11,254
Location: Pleasure dome, United Kingdom
The guy lacks basic common sense! violent1

Mitt Romney expressed understandable concern following the dramatic emergency landing of his wife Ann's plane due to a fire on board - before offering a surprising solution to the problem.
The Republican presidential candidate told a fundraiser in Beverly Hills at the weekend that the fundamental design of airplanes was flawed for dealing with such emergencies.
Romney said: 'When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no - and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. 'I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.'
d'oh! Lfunny

Surprised he didn't suggest pee on the fire!

According to aviation experts, opening a plane window would have flooded the cabin with oxygen, fueled the fire and caused a loss of cabin pressure that could have ripped apart the fuselage.

Applause thumbright


Of all our inventions for mass communication, pictures still speak the most universally understood language.

Walt Disney

LadyX
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:39:00 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
ladyx wrote:

Your examples of "life/no life" and "slavery/liberty" are non-applicable at worst and needless hyperbole at best.

1ball wrote:

More claims you can't logically support.


We're talking about taxes and programs, not life and death, and not slavery or liberty. Look, I get it, you're saying that taxation above and beyond what somebody's independently willing to pay is tantamount to slavery, and makes them drones, people want them to buy them stuff, etc. etc. But if you back away from the ledge, the reality of all of this is about finding a balance. This mention of a balance/middle ground of course sends you on another tangent about who gets to decide that, etc. Congress decides, of course. If we don't like it, we can vote them out. If Congress ratifies a giant hike in taxes, then yes, it could have adverse affects, and people will be unhappy, and that whole host of things you mentioned with regard to a drop in entrepreneurship and productivity might happen. But that means we're out of balance, not that we're slaves or have had our lives taken from us. That's why I say it's needless hyperbole at best.

1ball wrote:

Denying the truth of what you advocate doesn't make it not true.
Your belief that it is invalid in reality is not logically supportable.


I guess my lack of subscription to your absolutist belief system will never compute in your head. We'll just have to be friends despite that. Lwinking
Quote:

Like your belief in an absolute right to whatever goodies a majority tries to plunder?


If "goodies" are government services implemented by elected officials based on a majority vote, then yes, I'm "pro-plunder". All due to our diabolical system of democratic representation, right?


ladyx wrote:

Taxation = slavery, apparently.

1ball wrote:

Persisting in distorting by deliberately not understanding is decreasing your credibility.


Pick a lane, buddy. Just prior to this you were making slavery references to "collectivist" government policies, which I said was ridiculous. And then, just after the above quote, you said this, with regard to taxation, not actual slavery:

Quote:
Anything beyond that is attempted enslavement


then this:

Quote:
a right to plunder and enslave.


So, which is it?

And in case you haven't figured out yet, I'm really not concerned with appearing credible in your eyes. LOL. I'll still sleep at night while you think me and most of the world are doggedly resisting your "truths". Have fun with that.

Quote:

You can convince me that it doesn't fit you by logically showing me how other people are morally obligated to buy you stuff. You tried a moral argument with "civic and patriotic responsibility" for some people to pay more to government than the value received, but if you went to a dealer to buy a car and he said that, because you have a job, you have to pay a 50% premium in order to decrease the cost of a car for his poor unemployed brother-in-law, would you buy it?


Morality is a whole other thing, and while I'm generally sleep deprived and often wrong, I don't remember making a moral argument per se. Unless you're saying that the word "morality" is synonymous with "responsibility", then maybe it fits. But I'm not concerned enough with what you choose to call me personally to really argue the point about labeling.

To your analogy, extreme examples will always prove your point.

Quote:

Your agreement is only required to the extent that you want to be prepared for the possible futures of runaway democracy. Simply clicking your heels together and chanting, "It won't happen." isn't a plan you should place much faith in.


Although it's pretty well established that you and I aren't going to agree wholesale on your theories, I'll take your 'runaway democracy' over 'no democracy', come what may. As an aside, I think my boyfriend has a good shot at making neighborhood chieftan after the collectivist doomsday comes to pass and life becomes a William Gibson novel. My heels are pretty good for clicking.

Quote:

Blaming irrelevant issues like the tone I take looks like just another desperate attempt to deflect attention away from your false belief.


It was just an observation, 1ball. I know it's hard for you to understand that sometimes others just don't believe the same as you do, but that's what's occurring in large part here. The derision you get sometimes has much to do with your own presentation and lack of self-deprecation or humor here. I don't like you any less for it, but it warrants mentioning since it came up, that you sometimes get what you demonstrate to deserve. Not everything about your interactions here amounts to a referendum on your personal devotion to individualism.

Quote:

Having studied the problems of believing in invalid rights to an obviously greater extent than most people, I have anticipated many of the objections that will be raised, analyzed their validity, countered them with valid logic and come to a reasonable approximation of why they are unsuitable for public policy. That sort of problem solving is one of the things that minds are for. Without it, public policy discussions would be nothing more than your religion of coerced self-sacrifice shouting at their religion of coerced self-sacrifice and vice versa. That you would shun the opportunity to reason your way to a logically supportable conclusion about the rights you claim indicates that you understand their lack of validity.

I'd like to review your truth-testing methodology.


I bet you would. Lfunny

It's a good, airtight theory, 1ball. I don't deny that in extreme examples that your doomsday outcomes would apply. But we don't live in a theoretical world. Equating democratically-passed taxation and services to slavery and plundering is nothing more than carrying water for our most wealthy. Yearning for states to have control over most governance is to yearn for things that our current system isn't going to allow for. In wishing for things that just aren't so, we have something in common. Call it a moral argument if you want, I'm beyond caring what you call things, but in a functional society, the wealthiest have to pay more than the poorest, that's just the way it has to work, that's the way it works everywhere that western values prevail.

If they decide to shut the thing down over incremental changes in tax policy, then yes, that's their right. And when me and my family become impoverished slaves to the world-state, you'll get due credit for being right about everything you've harped on here. I'll say "aw shucks, should have bought what 1ball was selling."

But for now, I think it's best that I recognize our stalemate, and you can go forth imagining my anguished denial. f-hihi
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:23:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Look, I get it, you're saying that taxation above and beyond what somebody's independently willing to pay is tantamount to slavery, and makes them drones, people want them to buy them stuff, etc. etc. But if you back away from the ledge, the reality of all of this is about finding a balance. This mention of a balance/middle ground of course sends you on another tangent about who gets to decide that, etc. Congress decides, of course. If we don't like it, we can vote them out.


What you don't seem to get is that our options "if we don't like it" aren't limited to voting them out. We don't only vote with ballots. Even the poorest of people vote against the economy of the US by exercising their ability to buy a cheaper foreign made product at WalMart than a more more expensive US made product at a boutique store in the ritzy downtown of their city.

Quote:
If Congress ratifies a giant hike in taxes, then yes, it could have adverse affects, and people will be unhappy, and that whole host of things you mentioned with regard to a drop in entrepreneurship and productivity might happen. But that means we're out of balance, not that we're slaves or have had our lives taken from us. That's why I say it's needless hyperbole at best.


It doesn't have to be "a giant hike in taxes". Adverse consequences come in the form of friction on the economy with every violation of any inalienable right, no matter how small. It isn't only about taxes. It's also labor law and other anti-business regulation, and anything that increases the cost of doing business in the US or improves the competitive posture of foreign competition in any way. This "balance" you speak of is payed for by the people who the programs are supposed to help. They are just too economically naive to realize that they are buying their own pain with their votes. They perceive happiness when they get their benefit from the government in the same way that a junkie perceives happiness when he shoots a drug into his veins, but he's still a junkie and still in need of another fix tomorrow and he still wasted his money on feeling good instead of addressing the underlying irrationality of his life. Calling it needless hyperbole is simply ignorance of economics. When you are that dependent on the government printing money and borrowing against your future, you are a slave to your addiction.

Much like the junkie, you look at the way things are and think "It's not so bad now. My life is fairly well balanced. I just need a little more benefit from the government and I'll be set. High unemployment, growing debt, etc. are all somebody else's problems and they can be postponed into the future but my kid won't suffer from my failure to pay my own bills." It's economic ignorance.

Quote:
I guess my lack of subscription to your absolutist belief system will never compute in your head.


It computes as what it is, incorrigible denial, at least until your pain level increases to the point of recognition.

Quote:
If "goodies" are government services implemented by elected officials based on a majority vote, then yes, I'm "pro-plunder". All due to our diabolical system of democratic representation, right?


What it's due to is irrelevant. What it's causing and will result in is relevant. The plunder is of your own future. The illusion that this is somebody else's money that you're getting is a delusion. The burden of paying for these goodies is shifted to the future and to the current middle class, who respond by spending less which results in shifting the burden to the recipients of the goodies in the form of reduced economic opportunity. The middle class is quite able to adjust to spending less, but is the lower class able to adjust to an increase in loss of economic opportunity?

ladyx wrote: Taxation = slavery, apparently.

1ball wrote: Persisting in distorting by deliberately not understanding is decreasing your credibility.

Quote:
Pick a lane, buddy. Just prior to this you were making slavery references to "collectivist" government policies, which I said was ridiculous. And then, just after the above quote, you said this, with regard to taxation, not actual slavery:


1ball wrote: Anything beyond that is attempted enslavement

The key word is attempted because the enslavement is thwartable. The effect is shifted to those who are lower on the economic ladder.

Quote:
then this:


1ball wrote: a right to plunder and enslave.

That is what you believe that you have, not what you actually have. You assert that right and it comes back to bite you in the ass. You don't perceive it, because you blame the bite in the ass on the (supposedly immoral) behavior of others, but it is your own (immoral) behavior and of course, the behavior of your co-believers, coming back on you.

1ball wrote:You can convince me that it doesn't fit you by logically showing me how other people are morally obligated to buy you stuff. You tried a moral argument with "civic and patriotic responsibility" for some people to pay more to government than the value received, but if you went to a dealer to buy a car and he said that, because you have a job, you have to pay a 50% premium in order to decrease the cost of a car for his poor unemployed brother-in-law, would you buy it?

Quote:
Morality is a whole other thing, and while I'm generally sleep deprived and often wrong, I don't remember making a moral argument per se. Unless you're saying that the word "morality" is synonymous with "responsibility", then maybe it fits. But I'm not concerned enough with what you choose to call me personally to really argue the point about labeling.


Yes, when you preach responsibility, that is a moral argument when it isn't a legal argument. There is contracted responsibility, something a person legally accepts by entering into a contract (which of course is also a moral responsibility). And then there is the false moral responsibility that you are trying to impose on others, but unknowingly punishing yourself with the consequences of.

Quote:
To your analogy, extreme examples will always prove your point.


All that's telling me is that, when you don't like your double-standard exposed, you'll wave the "extreme" flag. The principle that puts the lie to one of your beliefs is there in another of your beliefs.

1ball wrote: Having studied the problems of believing in invalid rights to an obviously greater extent than most people, I have anticipated many of the objections that will be raised, analyzed their validity, countered them with valid logic and come to a reasonable approximation of why they are unsuitable for public policy. That sort of problem solving is one of the things that minds are for. Without it, public policy discussions would be nothing more than your religion of coerced self-sacrifice shouting at their religion of coerced self-sacrifice and vice versa. That you would shun the opportunity to reason your way to a logically supportable conclusion about the rights you claim indicates that you understand their lack of validity.

Quote:
I don't deny that in extreme examples that your doomsday outcomes would apply. But we don't live in a theoretical world.


Waving the extreme flag again. Why did so many jobs already leave the US? Was it because a) greedy rich people wanted to exploit slave labor? b) consumers wanted cheaper goods? c) union labor in union-shop states priced themselves too high? Hint: By and large, the shareholders of large corporations are not rich people.

Quote:
Equating democratically-passed taxation and services to slavery and plundering is nothing more than carrying water for our most wealthy.


That belief is why I can't take you seriously. The wealthy don't need anyone to carry their water. It's the poor who need help. Your way of trying to do that hurts them while giving them the perception of helping them. That's why it's called the Dem plantation. It keeps the poor from being able to earn their way into higher quintiles. There will always be people entering the job market at the bottom. What you do cuts off their ability to move up. And you believe that's a good thing because it only creates dependency on government while appearing to punish the rich.

Quote:
Yearning for states to have control over most governance is to yearn for things that our current system isn't going to allow for.


That's only true because of the apparently incurable economic naivete of people who think they don't hurt themselves by advocating for federal control of the economic opportunity.

Quote:
In wishing for things that just aren't so, we have something in common. Call it a moral argument if you want, I'm beyond caring what you call things, but in a functional society, the wealthiest have to pay more than the poorest, that's just the way it has to work, that's the way it works everywhere that western values prevail.


That's not a moral argument, that's the Willie Sutton argument. (Q: Why do you rob banks. Willie Sutton: Because that's where the money is.) So you've abandoned your moral argument about civic responsibility and switched to the pragmatic amoral argument. That's actually progress for you, although I doubt you'll ever stop asserting a right to plunder.

Yes, the rich have to pay more, which puts us all at their mercy and puts a limit on how much we can spend, because when they stop paying more than they agree with, we get debt. And when the debt grows, they move even more of their wealth beyond our reach and that produces more debt. And who pays debt off? The people lower on the economic ladder and the people who will be entering the job market in the future. You and your kid.

Quote:
If they decide to shut the thing down over incremental changes in tax policy, then yes, that's their right. And when me and my family become impoverished slaves to the world-state, you'll get due credit for being right about everything you've harped on here. I'll say "aw shucks, should have bought what 1ball was selling."

But for now, I think it's best that I recognize our stalemate, and you can go forth imagining my anguished denial. f-hihi


When you can bring yourself to stop pretending it's all about tax policy, look around you. This balance that you don't realize you want is between the GDP and the Debt as a percentage of the GDP.

As benefits from government go up they cause greater growth of Debt as a percentage of GDP which causes decreased lending which causes shrinkage of the GDP which causes greater growth of Debt as a percentage of GDP which causes more decreased lending which causes more shrinkage of the GDP which causes greater growth of Debt as a percentage of GDP which causes more decreased lending which causes more shrinkage of the GDP which causes...

We're there. It's called circling the drain and we're almost twice around already and the real economic damage of Obamacare is still on the way. That's not alarmism. It's just not economic naivete.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
HardNReady12
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:42:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 65
Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States
So how about an $11 dollar an hour job protesting Romney in Cleveland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5DTqvX74O4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o16MGTbAmL0&feature=related

I know most of you are in the tank for Barry, as is the press but watch this before you vote for him again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=related
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:24:01 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
HardNReady12 wrote:
So how about an $11 dollar an hour job protesting Romney in Cleveland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5DTqvX74O4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o16MGTbAmL0&feature=related

I know most of you are in the tank for Barry, as is the press but watch this before you vote for him again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=related



I wish I had an $11/hour job. crybaby

Maybe I'll call up the SEIU from my Obama-phone and see if they have any openings near me. I can hold a sign!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:53:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,190
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


You don't understand this, though, and think this makes me a logic-deprived collectivist follower that wants people to buy her stuff. LOL.



Shoot - I want to buy you stuff. I think I'd be happy buying you stuff. I just don't think you'd be happy with the stuff I'd want to buy you... drunken
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:57:58 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,139
Location: Atlanta, United States
"One frequently used definition of rich is the top 1% of federal tax filers -- those with adjusted gross incomes of at least $343,927 in 2009.

They earned nearly 17% of all AGI in the country and paid more than a third (37%) of all federal income taxes collected by the government."

— CNN

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:12:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,190
Location: United States
1ball wrote:
Persisting in distorting by deliberately not understanding is decreasing your credibility. Taxation would be slavery if the taxpayer allowed it to buy him something of lower value than the price he pays. But taxation in excess of the value received is easily and profitably avoided. What you call the "civic responsibility" of paying taxes is only valid to the extent the taxpayer is getting his money's worth in government services. Anything beyond that is attempted enslavement and triggers the right to self-defense. You can't get around that, but the consequences of attempting to will show up in the economy, in the form of public debt, decreased investor confidence, higher unemployment, etc. Seriously try to guess who that harms the most.


I know I'm going to regret this, but I just can't let this one get by. And please, when you respond, don't chop my post up in tiny little "Faux News" soundbites. Reading all that shit gives me a headache. Learn to write a paragraph or two. You'll be much happier in the long run.

Your complaint here is about "taxation in excess of value received." On the face of it, that sounds quite reasonable. You pay a dollar, you want a dollar's worth of service in return. I won't ask how much you pay yearly in taxes, as that would be quite rude, but I am interested to know exactly how you establish the value of the services your government agencies all provide for you. If you never have need of the local police, do you feel that you shouldn't have to contribute toward their maintenance? After all, they're right there, standing by just in case. I'd ask the same question as regards your local Fire Department. Just because the vast majority of citizens haven't used them all year, does that mean that they shouldn't get paid for the time they spend in full readiness? Some people believe that public services should be paid for on an a la carte basis - if you call them, you should be responsible for paying for services rendered. Is this your opinion? if so, then what would prevent the emergency services departments from only responding to calls in more affluent neighborhoods, leaving those with lesser ability to pay to their own devices?

How would you value your share of the cost for building all the roads and rail lines that make up the infrastructure we depend on? Or the plumbing systems - yes, fresh water is good to have, isn't it? As is proper waste disposal and sewage treatment. And what value do you put on your security? What's your share of the billions of dollars it takes to maintain a standing military large enough to defend us "from all enemies, foreign and domestic". To "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" of our citizenry at large? Or do you feel that we have no real enemies at large in the world, and therefore should disband our Army, our Navy, our Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marines? Should we also disband the FBI? The CIA? The NSA? Those entities that stand watch over our country charged with doing all they can to keep us safe? How do you value your own contribution towards the safety of the nation as a whole? And how should your contribution in taxes be calculated, so as to not be more than "value received?"
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:33:16 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
As usual HardNReady12 has posted without really knowing what he's posting about. It is obvious that the video has been edited to make it seem that the man saying that they are paying eleven dollars an hour today is talking about the protesters whereas it is obvious from later in the video that he is talking about paid canvassers who are being paid that amount.

While we're on the subject of pay though, how about the fact that mine workers were forced to attend a Romney rally during work hours without pay? Workers at Murray Energy were required to attend a Romney rally, but had to do so without being paid. CEO Bob Murray is a fund raiser for Romney and has worked hard for Romney's election. Murray Energy has donated over $900,000 to Republican candidates. Murray has also asked employees to donate money to political causes, and keep lists of those who don't.

CFO Rob Moore admitted that the miners were required to attend, but denies that they were forced. Maybe he considers anything other than being forced at gunpoint to do something is voluntary.



I get the idea that the Republican party and their enablers like HardNReady12 would like all of us to work for nothing, or as close to nothing as possible.

The Obama Deception, also linked to by HardNReady12 is a ridiculous propaganda hack job that could be easily debunked by an intelligent nine year old who gets his news from somewhere besides Fox. His link was uploaded in March 2009, just months after President Obama was sworn into office. So far none of those horrible things the film promised has happened. Seriously, HardNReady12, stop falling for right wing lies and learn who the real Barack Obama is. In the 1960's and 70's he would have been a moderate Republican. He's not some wild eyed socialist who wants to nationalize everything and teach us to goose step. Were you not aware that all the civil liberty violations mentioned in the film were started during the Bush administration?

1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:30:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
I know I'm going to regret this, but I just can't let this one get by. And please, when you respond, don't chop my post up in tiny little "Faux News" soundbites. Reading all that shit gives me a headache. Learn to write a paragraph or two. You'll be much happier in the long run.


Sorry, but I'm going to chop it up so you know exactly what my response is directed at.

Quote:
Your complaint here is about "taxation in excess of value received." On the face of it, that sounds quite reasonable. You pay a dollar, you want a dollar's worth of service in return. I won't ask how much you pay yearly in taxes,


Zero in federal income and payroll tax. The damage that the level of socialism we have is doing to my investments more than covers a two-person share of the non-socialism expenses.

Quote:
I am interested to know exactly how you establish the value of the services your government agencies all provide for you.


Every individual does that individually. And everyone has a list of things they don't want to see their tax dollars spent on.

Quote:
If you never have need of the local police, do you feel that you shouldn't have to contribute toward their maintenance?


Sooner or later every collectivist starts blurring the whole local, state, federal taxation issue. You're no exception. I do pay local and state taxes. I pay for police and fire protection. Defense and all the other non-charity parts of the federal budget are mixed in with all kinds of coerced charity. It's the coerced charity I object to. SS, Medicare, Obamacare, Welfare, pretty much all kinds of federal subsidies. They should be handled at the state level or not at all. You've probably ignored the whole competition for governance issue, so perhaps you'll answer my questions. Why do these subsidies have to be at the federal level? Can't the people of California cover the people of California? Can't the people of Montana cover the people of Montana? How do we avoid "bread and circuses" democracy? What will we do when we run out of Other People's Money?

Quote:
How would you value your share of the cost for building all the roads and rail lines that make up the infrastructure we depend on? Or the plumbing systems - yes, fresh water is good to have, isn't it? As is proper waste disposal and sewage treatment. And what value do you put on your security? What's your share of the billions of dollars it takes to maintain a standing military large enough to defend us "from all enemies, foreign and domestic". To "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" of our citizenry at large? Or do you feel that we have no real enemies at large in the world, and therefore should disband our Army, our Navy, our Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marines? Should we also disband the FBI? The CIA? The NSA? Those entities that stand watch over our country charged with doing all they can to keep us safe? How do you value your own contribution towards the safety of the nation as a whole? And how should your contribution in taxes be calculated, so as to not be more than "value received?"


The point you're ignoring is that every individual decides whether he's getting his money's worth. He can be wrong, but he'll still act on his belief and when the federal government is chock full of coerced charity that he's not receiving, acting on his belief means reducing the value of the US society. A person can easily think, "I don't mind paying for federal highways on the other side of the country, because highways enable commerce, but I'm getting no benefit from these welfare programs." It doesn't matter if he's actually right about that. He'll act as if he's right. He'll decide against "the common good" because he thinks "the common good" decided to be parasitical.

Here's a basic thought exercise for you. How many lives do each of us have? Hopefully you guessed correctly. The answer is one. Why would we charge one person more for all the defense entities you listed above than another person? They each have the same number of lives. Are we saying one person's life is worth more than another's so we can justify charging him more? How would that be determined? They each have the same number of votes and we wouldn't give more votes to the person whose life was worth more by the same method of determination, so why would we charge more for defense? We have plenty of people who pay no federal income tax and yet their lives are being defended. That means that without even considering social programs, they're being subsidized by other people. Which basically means they're receiving coerced charity by getting free defense. Correct? A common defense is one thing the federal government was created for. Why shouldn't we charge a poll tax for defense? The answer to that is not a moral answer. It's a pragmatic answer. Because you can't get money from someone who has none. So you're faced with a dilemma. Either live without defense or cover their defense bill. You don't have to do that for food, shelter, medical care, etc. So why again shouldn't those charities be covered at the local or state level, where, if they get too greedy, you can move away from them without having to leave the country?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:04:23 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:
You don't have to do that for food, shelter, medical care, etc. So why again shouldn't those charities be covered at the local or state level, where, if they get too greedy, you can move away from them without having to leave the country?


If your personal philosophy is all about what you feel like is a good value for your taxation, then why would you hesitate to leave the country if it suits your best financial interests? If you don't believe there's a sufficient argument for civic responsibility when it comes to taxation and sacrifice, then why would you believe in an innate sense of preservation of the nation itself? If shit's out of whack, and taxation annoys you, just leave- right? That's the argument you make about states, so why wouldn't it apply logically to a nation as well?
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.