Switch Theme:

I think that hell has officially froze over.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Progressivity in the income tax code is a really interesting thing. Is it fair? Nope. Is there any other way to pay for everything we want? Nope.

Also, the FCC can regulate the airwaves because the government holds that they are public property, they way that say city owned theater is. I agree that it's a BS argument, but even the liberal courts have upheld it.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:Sebster,

Just a quick post before I go off to bed, I will address some of your other points tommorrow.

My example of 10 guys in a bar that you claim is just private spending and an invalid argument is just not true.


No, not invalid, just simplistic. What’s frustrating is the number of times I’ve mentioned the bigger picture, and you keep returning to analogies that repeat the same point. You are yet to address the bigger picture despite me mentioning it so many times. I’ll try again below.

your quote
"Ah, that would be a story about some guys doing some private spending. Which is no different to the story about the guy with the model collection. Both rely on ignoring the individual as part of a greater society, drawing income and paying tax as part of that system. Stop reposting the same basic premise and start addressing my rebuttal. "

In the US there is a graduated income tax. If 10 people all live in the same society (my analogy a bar) and all use the same infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, whatever (my analogy,drink the same beer, listen to the same music, watch the same tv, yet one pays nothing 1 (1 tax bracket, that after deductions, and the eic get a full refund of all taxes, pays nothing) the next tax bracket pays slightly more, etc. That is indeed a valid analogy. Just saying it isn't, well isn't. If you fail to undestand it, then try to point out my ignorance of one person (lenny Bruce) as a way of denigrating an argument is the same thing. And further, Not knowing the personal story of every person on the planet is no crime. I am sure that I could name a lot of famous people that you would have no clue who they were without looking them up first. I found that incredibly insulting and of no legitimate purpose in a discussion other than to be insulting. And one argument you failed to address, to name one, is the child in a parent's house .


Obviously your bar analogy was about progressive income tax. It was scarcely different to the previous analogies you posted. In reply, I gave the same argument I have given every other time, looking purely at spending ignores the primary issue about progressive income tax. See, in your example you don’t address at all how the people at the bar got their money and that is a major blindspot. Think of it slightly differently, consider that the people at the bar own the bar and work in the bar, and only have their money because of the laws and systems built up around that bar. When that bar needs repair, surely the people who benefit the most from it should pay a little more?

Because, and here I am saying it again, people are paid what they’re paid because of the way society is set up. Because of contract laws, property laws, government spending programs and all other parts of government and society, we earn what we earn. It is foolish to look at your paycheque at the end of the fortnight and say ‘how dare they take out 34%!’ as though this was some sudden external process, and not part and parcel of the same government and society that created the system that allowed you to be paid what you were paid in the first place. The doctors and the lawyers and businessmen who earn the big dollars earn that money because of the way society interacts, and that interaction includes the tax system. So at this point you can address that issue, or you can make a new analogy that complains about tax not being the same for everyone.

And yeah, maybe my line about Lenny Bruce was a little harsh, but if you to talk about freedom of speech he’s kind of an important figure. You haven’t addressed my point that obscenity laws were much harsher in his times than they are now. Or my latter point that sodomy used to be illegal, but now isn’t. You had a blanket claim that government restricts more freedoms, and I’ve given examples where people have more freedom than they used to. Address my points or concede your claim.

I repeat my arguments, because they have not been refuted, yet people claim they have. My examples using the definitions of law and freedom. Did you provide a definition refuting them? No. has anyone? No. The closest someone came to refuting them, is saying the equivalant of "it depends on what your definition of the word is, is".


But by the definition given, every country on Earth is socialist. It isn’t a useful definition.

You are a member of amnesty international. Congratulations. I have a United Nations Service Medal. Your point?


Mentioning AI was just a way of showing that I agree with your broad concern over government power. But that doesn’t mean your ultra-narrow view of considering no freedom but freedom from government, and your view that government only increases the number of laws is anything but bad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 05:03:01


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Sebster,
Your quote
"But by the definition given, every country on Earth is socialist. It isn’t a useful definition. "

What was my original argument?

Until such point as someone refutes my original argument by providing a valid definition of a law and a valid definition of freedom, my argument stands.

My definitions all came from the merriam webster dictionary.

My original argument was, and I repeat.
Laws restrict freedom
therefore more laws =less freedom


Then the arguments got onto what is more accurately called a discussion of socialism vs other forms of government or modern liberalism vs modern conservatism. Yet to date NO ONE has refuted my original argument. They have provided rationales. NOT PROOF. And there is a very signifigant difference between a rationale and proof. One is evidence showing something is true. The other is a belief.

So I will continue repeating my original argument until such time as that argument is proven wrong.


"Obviously your bar analogy was about progressive income tax. It was scarcely different to the previous analogies you posted. In reply, I gave the same argument I have given every other time, looking purely at spending ignores the primary issue about progressive income tax. See, in your example you don’t address at all how the people at the bar got their money and that is a major blindspot. Think of it slightly differently, consider that the people at the bar own the bar and work in the bar, and only have their money because of the laws and systems built up around that bar. When that bar needs repair, surely the people who benefit the most from it should pay a little more? "

Think of it this way. The doorman that collected the cover charge and the bartender are the government. The revenues they collect are used for the upkeep and running of the bar. So if all of them benefit equally from the bar, they should pay the same price. If one has better luck with the ladies in the bar, is that a valid reason to charge him more for veing there?

BTW, I do thank you for aknowledging the tone of the Lenny Bruce statement. I will take that and accept it as an apology. In the spirit of fairness, I will also aknowledge that I was rude to efarrer and apologize to him. Lenny Bruce might be important to a debate of free speech. Many people are important to the idea of free speech, yet that does not mean we know all of thier names. For example, off the top of my head I cannot think of the individuals involved in the law suit about fire and the theater. I could look it up, but would it matter? The facts of the case are the same regardless of wether or not I know the names of all parties invloved.

Efarrer, I apologize for the rudeness in tone of o couple of my earlier posts.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Polonius wrote:Progressivity in the income tax code is a really interesting thing. Is it fair? Nope. Is there any other way to pay for everything we want? Nope.

Also, the FCC can regulate the airwaves because the government holds that they are public property, they way that say city owned theater is. I agree that it's a BS argument, but even the liberal courts have upheld it.



Polonius,
Thank you joining us again. I also am gladthat you agree with me (at least on that specific point alone) that it is a BS argument. Now then, a couple of points with your statement, specifically "is there any other way to pay for everything we want?"
1. Yes there ARE other ways than a progressive income tax to pay for government services. One specific example is that when first written, the US constitution specifically prohibited an income tax. Yet the US still had a government. At that point the US government raised revenue primarily through consumption and excise taxes.
2.That was later changed with an amendment to the constitution to specifically allow for income taxes. And a massive expansion of government soon followed.
3. Not everyone agrees on what the basic services a government should provide.
4. Unfortunately in a democracy or a democratic form of government the majority is what decides (in theory) what the government will do.
5. Just because the majority wants something, does not make it fair or right or even a good idea. It just means that the majority want it. See above posts on Jim Crow Laws.

   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

Mango wrote:

What was my original argument?

Until such point as someone refutes my original argument by providing a valid definition of a law and a valid definition of freedom, my argument stands.


Your original point was that any/all democracies move towards totalitarianism, and the current USA govt. is socialist.

You then basically "accused" the poor and middle classes of voting against the "rich", and--bizarrely-- complained that the rich get taxed more than the poor. It's hard to tax people for things they haven't got see.

Oh, and then some weird little tangent that tried to suggest that things "just happen", outside of any societal context or progession.


You keep stating over and over again that more laws=less free society without offering any proof to support this at all except a few odd anecdotes that don't really work if you consider them.

You're currently seriously suggesting-- from your line of reasoning-- that a woman or an ethnic minority is now less free than they were 50-60 years ago.

Anytime anyone suggests something different you just go " No, you're wrong" and move on. Waving dictionary definitions around isn't an argument.

Again-- and this is like the 5th or 6th time now-- you continually refer to "freedom" as if it is quantifiable. It isn't.

30 years ago this discussion would have been pretty much impossible given the technology at the time-- still is in parts of the world today due to censorship/similar.
But I'm freer now than X years ago, and-- in my opinion-- so is my society.

The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Wow, I'm just shocked I'm not part of this thread.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Reds8n,
For simplicity sake, so that people do not have to go back to my first post with an argument. (which is different from my original post, which was a statement).

Mango wrote:Sadly, the unfortunate progression of any democracy is towards an authoritarian form of government. The old joke sums it up best.

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”.

Greater regulation = less individual freedom.

Regulatory creep: A politician’s natural tendency is to stay in office. To stay in office they have to be seen as being effective. To be seen as being effective they have to pass laws. The more laws that are passed, the more society is regulated. The more a society is regulated the larger government has to get. The larger government is, the more powerful it is. The more power a government has, the less power the governed have. And throughout history, once a power has been appropriated by a government, that government has always been loathe to give it up.

There are always more mid level or poor in a society than there are rich. Which means in any democracy, the poor and middle class will always outnumber the wealthy. The poor and middle class will be the two wolves and the sheep will be the wealthy. So on average, in a democracy, the party that represents the poor and middle class will maintain power more frequently than the party that represents the more well off. As such they will continually vote to implement policies that favor taking more resources from the wealthy and redistributing those resources to the poor and middle class. To gain access to these resources, the government has to pass more laws and regulations. For example, the government will slant the income taxes to hit the wealthiest harder than the non wealthy.

A republic, which is a democratic form of government, but is not a democracy, will resist this trend longer than a pure democracy. A republic has more safeguards for a minority group than does a pure democracy. However, even a republic will still have a natural tendency to behave like a democracy, it will just take longer to occur.

The power of a government can lessen over time, typically through corruption, an outside entity acting upon that government, or a general collapse of the society itself. This is what happened to the Soviet Union. (it was more a combination of the three). But failing a catastrophic change enforced on a government, the tendency of the government is to grow and repress.

Unfortunately, the tendency of the US has been to move toward socialism and a more repressive government. If the founding fathers could see what the Federal Government of the United States has become they would be horrified.


regulation is a synonym for rules. rules is a synonym for law.

So my original argument was, and I will quote myself.
"Greater regulation = less individual freedom."

Again, I provided a definition of law, and I have since shown that by definition a law restricts freedom. You have again provided a rationale that laws have a net benefit for society, yet you have still not refuted my original premise by proving how my (and merriam webster's) definition of law is wrong. You have given ample reasons of why you think and believe it is wrong, but have not proven that it is wrong. Until you can do that, you are arguing from a position of belief not fact.

   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

And so are you.

..and ?

regulation is a synonym for rules. rules is a synonym for law.


I don't agree, I'd use the word "order" instead.

And
Greater regulation = less individual freedom."


no, again things like racial or sexual discrimination laws make people freer,even on an individual basis.

Again -- 7th time now ?-- you're treating free or freedom like it;s a number that you just add or subtract to/from. IT isn't like that at all.

The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




reds8n wrote:And so are you.

..and ?

regulation is a synonym for rules. rules is a synonym for law.


I don't agree, I'd use the word "order" instead.

And
Greater regulation = less individual freedom."


no, again things like racial or sexual discrimination laws make people freer,even on an individual basis.

Again -- 7th time now ?-- you're treating free or freedom like it;s a number that you just add or subtract to/from. IT isn't like that at all.


Reds8n,
When I provide an accepted definition of a word, I am not arguing from belief. I am arguing from a point of fact.

"i don't agree, id use the word "order" instead" is an opinion. There is no proof or evidence given other than a statement of belief.

"no, again things like racial or sexual discrimination laws make people freer,even on an individual basis." is an opinion and a rationale, not a fact.

You are still merely expressing your opinion and belief, ie providing a rationale. You are not introducing evidence. You are not introducing any facts.

You have again, which everyone is accusing me of, repeated an opinion or a rationale. You have not refuted the basic premise of my argument.






   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Remember folks,
I have never said that all laws are bad. I have never said that the existence of laws is bad. I have never said that a state without laws is good. I have merely pointed out that laws restrict freedom. Is the fact that laws in and of themselves restrict freedom a bad thing? I have never argued that. Have I argued that laws, by the definition of a law, restricts freedom, by the definition of freedom? Yes, that is exactly what I have been arguing.

Some laws are good. Some laws are bad.(that is my personal opinion, I also believe that the vast majority of people would agree with that point.) That nearly everyone would agree with that point does not in and of itself make it a true statement however. It is still an opinion.

if a=b, then more of a=more of b

That is not a disputable opinion.

The discussion of if a law provides a benefit is different from the discussion of if a law restricts freedom.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

When I provide an accepted definition of a word, I am not arguing from belief. I am arguing from a point of fact.


Rubbish. That would only be true if we were arguing over the meaning of a word. That isn't what we're doing.

Myself and others suggest that society is freer now than it was in the past-- which you fail to disprove or even acknowledge-- and then agin retreat back to trying to quantify what freedom is.

It's nothing to with "a=b" etcv and all the rest of irrelevant nonsense. You're effectivekt claiming that a law that gives womena a vote malkes for a less free society ? Which is ludicrous.

The discussion of if a law provides a benefit is different from the discussion of if a law restricts freedom.


In parts yes, in parts no. Stop trying to move the goal posts.


Oh
Law : a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

You're not actually presenting an argument to refute.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 13:41:49


The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Mango wrote:
Polonius,
Thank you joining us again. I also am gladthat you agree with me (at least on that specific point alone) that it is a BS argument.


My free speech position is pretty well documented. I'm a hard left leaning social liberal. I do know that the legal grounds for the FCC aren't really that shaky. Speech can and is regulated, it's just that some speech is much, much harder to ban or even regulate. Political speech is the safest, and of that forms of expression that are readily available to the people are absolute hardest. There was a city once that tried to ban political leafleting. It got overturned faster than you can say spit.

As for the FCC, it regulates "commercial speech," which is always been easier to restrict. The other big weapon in the government's bag is that since it gave the airwaves to broadcasters, it can call the tune. I think we're reaching a point where it's starting to matter less, as content has found much better ways to be dispersed, but I think that the FCC in general is simply an overgrown censorship organ. We'll see if things change under a new regime.


Now then, a couple of points with your statement, specifically "is there any other way to pay for everything we want?"
1. Yes there ARE other ways than a progressive income tax to pay for government services. One specific example is that when first written, the US constitution specifically prohibited an income tax. Yet the US still had a government. At that point the US government raised revenue primarily through consumption and excise taxes.
2.That was later changed with an amendment to the constitution to specifically allow for income taxes. And a massive expansion of government soon followed.
3. Not everyone agrees on what the basic services a government should provide.
4. Unfortunately in a democracy or a democratic form of government the majority is what decides (in theory) what the government will do.
5. Just because the majority wants something, does not make it fair or right or even a good idea. It just means that the majority want it. See above posts on Jim Crow Laws.


In disclosure, tax policy is actually my thing. I've written papers on aspects of it and studied it for a semester in law school.

There are other ways of raising revenue, to be sure. It's important to separate tax policy (how do we raise then money we need) from spending policy (how much money do we need in the first place). Reducing spending any appreciable amount is far harder than most people realize. Defense spending, including retirement payments, is the bulk of our budget. Transfer payments make up the next big chunk, with discretionary spending a relatively small amount, and more of that is payment back to states than is commonly viewed. The states like federal taxes, because it allows them to keep their rates artificially low. So, any massive cut in federal spending will result in a corresponding increase in state spending. If you're just a 10th amendment "feds are bad, states are good" guy, then you might like that, but if you're an actual libertarian type, that's a false victory.

There are dozens of arguments for progressivity, and just as many against. We can hash them all out here, but they end in a draw, they always do. In the end, somebody has to pay the taxes (absent a fairly unrealistic massive reduction in federal spending) and when collecting money, you simply take it from those that can afford to pay. Fun Historical note: the income tax was only held to be a direct tax in 1895, when the Court held that taxes on income from property were taxes on the property. Even then, taxes on income from labor could have been taxed, but Congress even then didn't like the idea of only taxing the working classes.

The government expanding after the 16th amendment for a variety of reasons: World War 1, our rise as an imperial power, and the simple strains of being an industrial nation. Couple all of that with the reduction in tariffs (a big source of excise taxes) and the money needs to come from somewhere.

To me, it doesn't sound like you have a problem with our current tax system, you seem to not approve of our current governments spending patterns. That's fine, but that's not the fault of the tax system.

I'm going to say, and I'm not trying to be snotty, but it's a bit of bad form to casually drop things like Jim Crow laws (which violated constitutional rights in many ways) as laws that the majority wanted when analogizing. It's possible that in 50 or 100 years it will be found that some of the federal governments expansion was unconstitutional, but until it does comparing the two is misleading at best. I'd compare it more to things like the massive tariffs that compounded the great depression, or even to something like prohibition. Popular and seemed like good ideas, but didn't work out.

Like the man said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Having a liberal democracy (one in which people have certain rights that can't be legislated away) makes the people safer from the abuses of the majority, but there will always be people that disagree. I can't, and the best minds of our generation, can't think of a better way to govern a nation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 15:57:54


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:Sebster,
Your quote
"But by the definition given, every country on Earth is socialist. It isn’t a useful definition. "

What was my original argument?


Mmm, but there's socialist and there's socialist. You're playing a game where you take the weaker form present in Western democracies, and then ignore the countless steps and major reforms needed to get to much stronger forms.

Then you ask someone to disprove your claim and fall back on the very broad definition.

My original argument was, and I repeat.
Laws restrict freedom
therefore more laws =less freedom


But you've kept up that claim by ignoring each point I've made rejecting it. You haven't addressed any of the counter claims. You've just played this little game where you pick out side issues, and when I repeat the claim, you pick out some other random side issue. It's very poor form on your part.

So, right now, in your reply, explain how your theory accounts for the fact the Lenny Bruce would not charged today. Explain how sodomy was once illegal and now isn't. Also explain the presence of laws that protect freedoms, such as the right to cast a vote.

Actually address the issues I've raised constantly.

Then the arguments got onto what is more accurately called a discussion of socialism vs other forms of government or modern liberalism vs modern conservatism. Yet to date NO ONE has refuted my original argument. They have provided rationales. NOT PROOF. And there is a very signifigant difference between a rationale and proof. One is evidence showing something is true. The other is a belief.


I really have. I refuse to believe you haven't seen them. You've just ignored them. So address the issues.

So I will continue repeating my original argument until such time as that argument is proven wrong.


On current form I expect you'll keep repeating your original argument regardless of anything anyone posts.

Think of it this way. The doorman that collected the cover charge and the bartender are the government. The revenues they collect are used for the upkeep and running of the bar. So if all of them benefit equally from the bar, they should pay the same price. If one has better luck with the ladies in the bar, is that a valid reason to charge him more for veing there?


No, that's a fail because you're just repeating your original premise again. Address the idea that the income we earn is derived from our interactions with society, and it is the same society that levies taxes. Don't just repeat 'people pay different amounts', because it's hopelessly simplistic.

BTW, I do thank you for aknowledging the tone of the Lenny Bruce statement. I will take that and accept it as an apology. In the spirit of fairness, I will also aknowledge that I was rude to efarrer and apologize to him. Lenny Bruce might be important to a debate of free speech. Many people are important to the idea of free speech, yet that does not mean we know all of thier names. For example, off the top of my head I cannot think of the individuals involved in the law suit about fire and the theater. I could look it up, but would it matter? The facts of the case are the same regardless of wether or not I know the names of all parties invloved.


Take any apology you want, but you still haven't answered the question. It's very rude on your part.

Address the point. What Bruce was convicted for is not a crime any more, and that's a big problem when your theory assumes you only get more laws, not less. Or consider that sodomy was a crime and now it isn't. Address the issue or concede the point.

You've talked around this for pages now... address the issue. Because there are two issues going on here, and you're failing to do anything but repeat your original argument again and again in each.

In one you claim 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'.
I have pointed out that there are areas where laws are removed, Bruce' obscenity charge and sodomy. I have pointed out that some laws protect freedoms, such as the right to vote without interference.
In reponse you've just repeated 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'. This is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the Bruce, sodomy and voting rights points, or form a better argument that can still be true while recognising Bruce etc, or some other approach. But you can't just repeat your original claim. That's just being obnoxious.

In the other you claim that progressive taxation is like making two people pay different amounts for the same product.
I have pointed out that the income people earn is based on society. That it is because of the presence of property laws, contract laws and corporation laws that we have a modern economy where a person can earn $200,000 as a doctor. It is therefore a bad concept to pretend earnings are purely the product of the individual, and then pretend tax is the only external factor.
In response, you've made a string of random analogies that repeat the original concept 'it is crazy that people pay different amounts for the same thing'. Again, this is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the idea that social laws massively influence earning potential, or form a better argument that accounts for the role of society in earning potential. But again, you can't just repeat your original claim.

And you never did address my point about social progress. Have you conceded that claim, or are you just keeping quiet about that and hoping we'll all forget?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Frazzled wrote:Wow, I'm just shocked I'm not part of this thread.


So am I

And compared to the teeth pulling exercise this thread has become, I'm quite missing our old battles. Right or wrong, at least you had a follow up point more often that not.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 16:06:30


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle. Absent the state, mankind has the possibility for true freedom. In practice, unless something protects those freedoms, they will quickly be taken by external forces, depending on the society and technological savvy: barbarian warlords, religious zealots, mega corporations, or evil sentient robots.

So, in practice, having a liberal government that guarantees and protects basic rights makes people in practice more free than they were without, particularly if you add freedom from want to the list.

I think it goes without saying that there was more economic freedom 200 years ago for land owning white men, but far less of all freedoms for all people, and even far less economic freedom for women, non-landowners, and of course the slaves. So, while the land owning elite had more freedom, I think the overall freedom enjoyed today is higher.

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Thats just because all the voices in my head demand that I write down each of their particular points...

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Reds8n and Sebster,

For your enjoyment, here is another definition. Please bear with me, but this is pertinent to our discussion. This is also a very long post. People are forewarned. Sebster, this will also answer some of your other criticisms.

Live:1: to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant2: to continue alive3: to maintain oneself : subsist <lived on rice and peas>4 a: to occupy a home : dwell <living in a shabby room> <they had always lived in the country> b: to be located or stored <the silverware lives here>5: to attain eternal life <though he die, yet shall he live — John 11:25(Revised Standard Version)>6: to conduct or pass one's life <lived only for his work>7: to remain in human memory or record <the past lives in us all — W. R. Inge>8: to have a life rich in experience

If I make the following statement:
“All fish live in water.”

It is a true statement by the definitions and meanings of the word “live” that are used, with the exception of 5 and 7. Meaning 5 is a non sequitur since fish do not as far as we know have religion, and 7 is not relevant because it is referring to “lives” in a sense that refers to human memory, and is also a non sequitur.

All fish live (1. to be alive) in water
All fish live (2.have the life of an animal or plant) in water
All fish live (3. Maintain oneself) in water
All fish live (4. to occupy a home) in water
All fish live (5. to attain eternal life) in water (non sequitur)
All fish (6. to conduct or pass one’s life) in water
All fish (7 remain in human memory or record)

So if all fish live in water, can some fish “live” out of water?Yes, depending upon the meaning.

Can some fish live (1. to be alive) out of water? Yes, but for most this is a very temporary thing. The lungfish and snake head can survive for extended periods, but still will die without returning to the water.

Can some fish live (2. to have the life of an animal) out of water? Yes see def 1

Can some fish live (3 maintain oneself) out of water? Temporarily

Can some fish live (4 to occupy a home) out of water? No, the fishes “home” is the water. Even the snakehead and lungfishes “homes” in this case is the water.

Can some fish live (6 conduct or pass ones life) out of water. No, they still need to spend the bulk of their time in water.

So the statement all fish live in water is true, even in broad terms
It is not true that all fish live out of water.

the statement all laws restrict freedom is true for the following reasons:

Law a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3): common law b (1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2): the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs ; also : litigation (3): the agency of or an agent of established law c: a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d: something compatible with or enforceable by established law e: control , authority

2 often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament bcapitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : pentateuch , torah — see bible table3: a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>4: the whole body of laws relating to one subject5 a: the legal profession b: law as a department of knowledge : jurisprudence c: legal knowledge6 a: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b: a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

The statement all laws restrict freedom is true

It is true if you use meaning 1, including all sub sets of meaning 1
Meaning 2 the will of god and the first books of the bible, are again non sequiturs
It is true for meaning 3
It is true for meaning 4
Meaning 5 is a non sequitur
It is true for meaning 6
Technically it is also true for 7, but that also does not follow.

I discussed this in relation to freedom in a previous post. Now, from your point, Yes some laws protect rights. They do not however give rights. They protect rights by limiting the freedom of action of an individual or group. The difference is subtle, but it is still there. It is the same distinction between something that is “legal”, and something that is “not illegal”.

So if all laws restrict freedom
Then more laws restrict freedom more

This means that with more laws people are less free. Do they still enjoy protections from the laws? Yes. But did the laws restrict their freedom? Yes the laws did. If a law protects a right, does it give a freedom? No, because a law does not have t


Legal:1: of or relating to law2 a: deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure b: having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular c: established by law ; especially : statutory3: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules4: recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity5: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members6: created by the constructions of the law .

Illegal: : not according to or authorized by law : unlawful , illicit ; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)

So there is a difference between “legal” and “not illegal”. It is the argument used for example in the decriminalization of drug use or prostitution. The people are not arguing to legalize (which implies condoning) drug use or prostitution, they are arguing to make it not illegal. Which implies not condoning it, but not making it a matter for legal prosecution.

It is the same reasoning as why in the US at least, when a jury reaches a verdict, it is read as “guilty” or “not guilty”. Why don’t they say innocent in stead of “not guilty”. There is a difference between the two, but it is subtle. Even though it is subtle, it is enough of a distinction that the term “not guilty” is used instead.

Is the following a law?
“It is wrong to take property that does not belong to you.”

No, it is a statement. It can become a law if some authority enforces it.
When it becomes enforced, it becomes restrictive. A law that is not enforced is not a law. It is a statement.

A law that is not enforced, is not a law. It is a statement.

The words themselves do not make a law, it is the mechanism that is used to apply the words in practice that turns them from a simple gathering together of words, into a “law”

Another way to look at it is this. Do guns kill people? Unless acted upon by an outside force, a gun is incapable of harming anyone. It is an inanimate object. By itself, it can do nothing. If acted upon by an outside force, can a gun kill someone? No, it cannot. It can however become the mechanism by which a person is killed. The gun is still an inanimate object. It does however become the mechanism by which person was killed. For example, a gun sitting on a shelf is knocked off of the shelf by a cat. The gun falls, striking a person on the head. The gun, an inanimate object can do nothing. The person was killed by the cat. The gun falling was the mechanism by which this occurred. Do people still say that guns kill people? Yes. The more correct way to say it would be “guns can be used to kill people”. To quote a very famous person “words matter”.


Completely off the subject of what we are talking about, but funny nonetheless,

“all fishes live in water, all kippers are fish, a logical proposition is that all kippers live in water” however my wife is not logical. If given the proposition that all fishes live in water and all kippers are fish, she will say “if I wear kippers it will not rain, or even that I do not love her anymore”

I think that was a monty python skit. It was extremely funny either way.

   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Polonius,
You guessed it, I am a libertarian. While I would like the libertarian candidates to win, they typically do not have a prayer. So I hold my nose and vote for the republican more often than not because while not an exact match, the republican candidate is generally closer to my views than the democratic candidate. I still, after all these years, have the vain hope that one of the politicians we elect will actually do what they say they will. If you don't get elected, you can't change anything.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:
Law a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority


Notice that a binding custom, or practice of a community does not have to be codified. Laws do not have to be written.

Natural law, unwritten law governed by the nature of any given situation, changes fluidly. It can be one thing in one moment, and another in the next. There is no certain way of predicting it, or shaping one's actions around it. It is universally restrictive.

Written law is governed by the specific phrase of legal documentation. It can be referenced from a reasonable standard of objectivity, and changes predictably according to standing jurisprudence. It is not universally restrictive in the analog sense that natural law is, but in a digital sense that leaves significant, and readily discernible gaps.

Mango wrote:
This means that with more laws people are less free.


Yes it does, and natural law is a more comprehensive form of law than written law. As such, people are more free under a government legal code than they are in a state anarchy.


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




dogma wrote:
Mango wrote:
Law a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority


Notice that a binding custom, or practice of a community does not have to be codified. Laws do not have to be written.

Natural law, unwritten law governed by the nature of any given situation, changes fluidly. It can be one thing in one moment, and another in the next. There is no certain way of predicting it, or shaping one's actions around it. It is universally restrictive.

Written law is governed by the specific phrase of legal documentation. It can be referenced from a reasonable standard of objectivity, and changes predictably according to standing jurisprudence. It is not universally restrictive in the analog sense that natural law is, but in a digital sense that leaves significant, and readily discernible gaps.

Mango wrote:
This means that with more laws people are less free.


Yes it does, and natural law is a more comprehensive form of law than written law. As such, people are more free under a government legal code than they are in a state anarchy.



Dogma,
Not quite.

Again definition from merriam webster

Natural Law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law

Key word there is still "Binding" which would make it less free.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Wait, are you posing that no law mean freedom?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 18:08:13


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Frazzled,
Yes, I am posing that no law means freedom. A law can provide protection. A law can provide benefits. A law can guarantee rights. But a law does not mean freedom, it means the opposite. By definition a law is the antithetical to freedom.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

So you're down with that whole Mad Max scenario thing then heh?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:
Dogma,
Not quite.

Again definition from merriam webster

Natural Law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law

Key word there is still "Binding" which would make it less free.


You missed the point completely. My argument is that freedom, in the sense you're using the word, does not exist. The existence of natural law as a universally restrictive force ensures that no individual can ever be completely free from the forces that exist outside of himself. The best we can hope for is transparency, and transparency can only be granted through the creation of legal documentation.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

dogma wrote: The best we can hope for is transparency, and transparency can only be granted through the creation of legal documentation.


Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with that conclusion. I'd posit the best we can hope for is the maximum amount of freedom that does not impinge on other people's freedom. In essence, its the "you rights end at my nose" argument.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

I think that Mango is simply a beleiver in an extreme doctrine, that like most extreme doctrines doens't work well in practice.

Communism works fine if people are happy working as hard as they can for the betterment of others, which they never are.

Pure Libertarianism works fine if people never abuse their power over the weak, which they almost always will.

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas



that like most extreme doctrines doens't work well in practice.


A true maxim of life there.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Frazzled,
Liked the first mad max movie, never bothered to se the next ones. It was entertaining.

However, from what I can remember of that movie (its been almost 20 years since I saw it) it was basically a post apocolyptic world where the main doctrine was might makes right.

That is not the position I am advocating, nor am I advocating anarchy.
   
Made in us
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne






Polonius wrote:Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle. Absent the state, mankind has the possibility for true freedom. In practice, unless something protects those freedoms, they will quickly be taken by external forces, depending on the society and technological savvy: barbarian warlords, religious zealots, mega corporations, or evil sentient robots.


I agree with your assertion that the answer lies in the middle, however, I would tend to say that sebster lies alot closer to this "middle" than Mango does.

Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.

Whitedragon Paints! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613745.page 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with that conclusion. I'd posit the best we can hope for is the maximum amount of freedom that does not impinge on other people's freedom. In essence, its the "you rights end at my nose" argument.


So the freedom to compete? I can agree with that. Actually to me that isn't all the different from transparency, as for me competition only exists in conditions of reasonable transparency.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 20:42:49


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: