 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
Well, then, if you are saying that you support other social programs, yet not Social Security, then we seem to have a consistency problem, given that you said earlier you were not in favor of forcing me to help others.
Backtracking, or did I misunderstand?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
che,
Actually, special interest groups tend to be a minority viewpoint - take the environmental lobby, for example. |
Amajority of Americans believe environmental regulations should be tightened.
quote:
Or lobbyists for attorneys. |
While most people might agree that sometimes judgements go to far, the vast majority of Americans perfer to have a lawyer when they need one.
quote:
In some cases the special interests represent a majority in a certain constituency, |
In most cases, when someone refers to a "special interest" they generall mean someone who represents a majority viewpoint. It's a way of trying to cut it down, to belittle it. No one ever refers to the NRA as a special interest group, even though it represents a distinct minority. Women are a special interest group, despite being 52% of the population. Working people are a special interest group, even though they are the vast majority of the population. Business owners are never a special interest group.
quote:
Now, the types of things I support are generally beneficial to businesses, but that's because I believe in the free market. |
Most businesses hate the free market, except for idelouges like yourself. Business tends to be risk adverse, and competition produces risk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Amajority of Americans believe environmental regulations should be tightened. |
Perhaps, but the majority of Americans are emphatically NOT in line with the Sierra Club or the Kyoto Accords.
quote:
While most people might agree that sometimes judgements go to far, the vast majority of Americans perfer to have a lawyer when they need one. |
Which ignores the issue that attorney lobbyist groups prevent serious tort reform.
quote:
In most cases, when someone refers to a "special interest" they generall mean someone who represents a majority viewpoint. |
But we just established that most people don't share the view that we should have SERIOUS environmental reform/regulations or the view that multi-billion dollar punitive damages are fair.
quote:
Most businesses hate the free market |
Well, the ones that rely on corporate welfare and subsidies certainly do, anyway 
I bet Microsoft wouldn't mind, though.
quote:
Taxation isn't robbery just because you call it robbery any more than wage slavery is really slavery just cuz I call it slavery. It's a propaganda term and you know it. |
Just because YOU call it taxation doesn't mean it isn't robbery. Sure, if the connotation of "robbery" is "illegal", you may have a point, but the connotation of "robbery", "stealing", etc., has more to do with taking what is mine without my permission.
BK,
quote:
Medicare is forcing you to help others? |
Am I paying for it, even if I don't need/want to use it?
quote:
Paying for the public school system is forcing you to help others? |
Again, am I paying for it, even if I don't want/need to use it?
quote:
As Che has already stated, no one is forcing you to pay for these things. If you don't want to pay for them, you are free to leave the country. |
Then by the same argument, Social Security isn't coercive, because I'm free to leave. And by the way, if you don't like abortion, you shouldn't crusade against it, you should just leave the country and maybe move to the Vatican. Come on 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
If you don't wish to live by the rules of the group, you are free to leave the group (or try and change the rules). |
Exactly! BK and others are trying to invalidate my argument by telling me I should just leave the country if I don't like it - they are ignoring the "trying to change the rules" aspect. I can't change the rules by myself, but I can certainly exchange in discourse about the rules, and I think that those who support the current system owe a better response than "If you don't like it, leave".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Perhaps, but the majority of Americans are emphatically NOT in line with the Sierra Club or the Kyoto Accords. |
The Sierra Club is exceedingly moderate. Kyoto was just bad cuz all it did was encourage companies to move to the 3rd world to avoid having to insteall new technologies.
quote:
Which ignores the issue that attorney lobbyist groups prevent serious tort reform. |
Serious tort reform, i.e., abolishing American's access to tort. The only people who want serious tort reform are the companies who make defective products and doctors who hurt their patients.
quote:
But we just established that most people don't share the view that we should have SERIOUS environmental reform/regulations or the view that multi-billion dollar punitive damages are fair. |
No, you asserted those untrue facts, which have not been borne out in poll after poll.
quote:
Just because YOU call it taxation doesn't mean it isn't robbery. Sure, if the connotation of "robbery" is "illegal", you may have a point, |
Robbery is taking something illegally. When you jail someone, you take something from them (their freedom) against their will. We both say it's justified, however. The difference between you and I is that I see taxation as justified. The fact you don't agree is as meaningless as the fact that criminals don't agree with being jailed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
The Sierra Club is exceedingly moderate. Kyoto was just bad cuz all it did was encourage companies to move to the 3rd world to avoid having to insteall new technologies. |
You miss the point. Most Americans are not in favor of serious environmental reform, at least not at the cost of economic prosperity (ie, their wallets).
quote:
Serious tort reform, i.e., abolishing American's access to tort. The only people who want serious tort reform are the companies who make defective products and doctors who hurt their patients. |
Not at all. I feel that it is unfair to, for example, put cigarette companies out of business because people smoke themselves to death, and unfair to put gun manufacturer's out of business because some gun owners behave irresponsibly/stupidly. I don't want to make it impossible to recover civil damages, I just want those damages to be reasonable.
quote:
No, you asserted those untrue facts, which have not been borne out in poll after poll. |
OK, you win, a majority of Americans support serious environmental reform at the expense of economic prosperity 
quote:
Robbery is taking something illegally. |
Certainly, but the connotation - the perception - of robbery really has nothing to do with the legality of the situation. It has to do with the fact that you are taking something that isn't yours. Parents don't teach their children not to steal because people who steal go to jail.
nye,
quote:
It's not a strawman. You profess to not want to be responsible for any but yourself. Go ahead. Be free. |
Wrong. I'm responsible to others to the extent that I cannot harm or coerce them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
And you owe something for the educaton that you recieved, and the roads that you travel, and the security that you live in, and... |
Well, I'm in favor of total privitization of education - and indeed I was in private schools for much of my pre-college life. I prefer to pay for roads in the form of tolls, and as for security, I am quite willing to pay user fees for security provided to me, for the same reason I am willing to pay for toll roads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The social contract would not have came about without some earlier concept of filial responsibility. That is all I am trying to say, and I think you mean the same thing, regardless of the terms that we attach to the concept.
'Social contract' for me is interchangeable, and can mean both the contracts within families, and between those of neighbours. |
Well, that is not what the term means, but of course it is a concept developed after thousands of years of human history during which allegiance was given to family, then tribe, and then lord.
The new bit was that each of us owed allegiance and should be of assistance to all the others who make up the much larger group, and they to us. Not up to a lord, and then down from him, but from each to all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Allowing you to leave is not justification for unfair treatment. |
In the case of liberarian arguments, however, I think it is a fair retort. They deny that society has any right whatsoever to regulate behavior that doesn't result in the harm of another. Membership in society, however, is voluntary, and if you don't like the fact that a society has the right to govern you, you are free to seperate from it. There is the little problem of all territory in the world being divided up by the various social groups, but you could live on the high seas. There's no government or taxation there. We'll even throw in free weather reports.
Every group of humans that has ever existed has regulated the behavior of its members. That is how humans live and exist. Behavior that enhances the survival of the group is legalized. Behavior that hurts the group is outlawed. Libertarians would seek to do away with a fundimental aspect of our existence. We may as well try to outlaw sex or eating as trying to outlaw law itself.
It isn't merely that they seek to end the social groups right to regulate their own behavior, they seek to end social groups right to regulate any behavior whatsoever. They seek the most fundimental transformation of humanity ever, the complete seperation of people from each other into atomized indivuals, completely devoid off any responsibility for one another, a situation that has existed nowhere at anytime except in the most disrupted of societies, and in such "societies," not even the rule of "an ye harm none" was obeyed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Intriguing concept of the day: it's the taxpayer's (as an abstract entity of General Will) money |
So, then, you subscribe to the belief that money collected under the guise of Social Security taxes are not guaranteed to be returned to you in the form of Social Security benefits? In other words, that money simply goes into the general fund, or is used to pay for people who previously paid into the system?
That being the case, it certainly doesn't seem unfair to cut off Social Security benefits immediately, given that any money being withheld doesn't belong to Social Security recipients anyway, right?
nye,
quote:
That's a good rule, but it's pretty silly to try to build a modern society on just that. |
It's silly to build a code of laws around the concept that I can do what I want, as long as I don't hurt or coerce others? Why?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
chegitz, Libertarians are not anarchists. Of course we believe in laws that regulate behavior. The behavior we wish to regulate, though, is simply behavior that results in harm to another. If you aren't hurting anyone, why shouldn't you do what you want? More to the point, why should doing so be illegal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
David Floyd:
One more thing. While you may believe that it is wrong for the state to charge you money for social programs, consider this.
I oppose abortion. I believe that abortion kills an unborn child. Here in Canada, a proportion of my income, should I make enough to pay, would go to kill babies.
Now I disagree with this provision, so that leaves me with four options.
1. To stay here in Canada, pay what I owe the state, and then use that money that I pay, as my commitment to the state. If I pay money to the state, then I should have a say in where it goes.
Then I can try to change the laws, so that a portion of my income does not go to kill babies.
The cost of this approach, is that until the law changes, some of my money is going to kill babies.
2. I can choose to withhold the money that would otherwise go to the state, for which the state would punish me by throwing me in jail. While my money would not be going to kill babies, it does mean that I would not be able to change the law for others, and it does mean that I have to bear the consequences of my decision to withhold the money.
3. I can choose not to make enough money such that I would be paying to the state. Again, none of the money that I make goes to kill babies, but the cost is to myself, in my lifestyle that comes from such restrictions.
4. I can choose to leave Canada and go elsewhere.
Are you willing to live with one of these choices DF? If not, then I challenge you to be consistent in your principles with respect to taxation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
You miss the point. Most Americans are not in favor of serious environmental reform, at least not at the cost of economic prosperity (ie, their wallets). |
That's not at all true. They just want their sacrifice to be meaningful. There is a reason why the hottest car in the U.S. is the Prius, even though it costs $10K more than a comparable non-hybrid car in the same class. Kyoto would be a meaningless sacrifice because all it would do is cause companies to move to 3rd world coutrnies to avoid regulations in the 1st world. Pollution isn't diminished and our economy sinks to boot. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are massively popular.
All environmental regulations were radical at one time, and carried what was considered a heavy economic cost. It just turns out, however, that the economic costs had previously be borne unwillingly by the population at large, rather than the polluters. On The News Hour with Jim Lehrer today, they were discussing a new government program tracking air pollution and noting that it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in sick days and medical treatment. Who should pay for that, the polluters or you and me? I say the polluters should, and so does your philosophy.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 08-09-2004 at 11:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Are you willing to live with one of these choices DF? |
I'm not sure what you're asking me. Do I agree that those are your options? Yes I do. Do I agree with your choice? Well, I don't know what your choice is.
But we are engaged in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of a situation, and hypothetically what would be better. Given that, an answer that is essentially "If you don't like it, leave", is simply counter-productive. It neither counters my argument or advances your own. Granted, it's a relevant choice I could make, but it's not a relevant answer.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2004 10:16
I'm not an anarchist, nor do I wish to be a hermit. Keep building up strawmen, though 
|