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 gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

Mango wrote:efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. .


Well...not quite.

Whilst I abhor the sacking of said gentleman for use of the word "niggardly", that does not in any way shape or form make society less "free" than before.

That was a misuse of a law. Somehting that will happen in any human (ie imperfect) society.

If you compare, top of my head example, Rosa Park's freedom to sit on a seat on a bus 60 odd years ago to that of now is she more or less free ? IE laws can indeed make a society more free.

Oh, and the Nazis, despite the name were not socialist by any way shape or means. You've got to do better than that.

Incidentally.... does not requiring a defined as opposed to accepted usage of terms mean that one's own arguments are in act not "free" ?

..how metaphysical do you want to get here ?

The term "rights" is itself entirely dependent the standardisation and formalisation of spelling and grammar. Or are you now going to claim that the very act of communication itself is a tyranny as it impugns upon an individuals "right" to use language as they choose ?

I would also point out that whilst you're very keen to claim that " such and such did NOT argue against/disprove my points" you make no attempt to actually counter any arguments put to you.

Just going " Nope, they're wrong" doesn't really count.

"socialist apologists " ?
Please !

When you throw around terms like that you're just begging to be called A/B/C/term of your choice in return. Are we going to do this dance again ? Because no " republic capitalist" system has EVER done anything wrong at all ? Ever ?
laughable.

After all it's not like people got sacked for using a word that meant something but people thought it meant..... err....


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
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

You have the time to repeat your own argument ad nauseum, but not to engage in honest dialogue with the people who have effectively poked holes in it.

I am uninterested in reading anything further from you, and thus will not, unless called upon to do so as a moderator.

Have a good day. Good luck in advancing your education, and in improving your ability to engage in the meaningful exchange of ideas.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:reds8n,
What came first, people or society?


I'm not reds8n, but I know foolishness when I see it.

People and society are concurrent. One did not exist before the other, because they're co-dependent. Societies are groups of people, and people are social constructs. You're equivocating people, and humans. Humans exist independent of context, people do not.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in ca
Inexperienced VF-1A Valkyrie Brownie




Mango wrote:efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. By the very definitions of the words, they do so. Please show me, oh Superior Intellect, how my reading of two simple definitions is flawed.

Your acknowledgment of my superior intellect aside, it is in choosing too simple definitions of the terms that you begin to go wrong.

The world is too complex for simple definitions. Only a true fool would try to divide it that way. Put into the simplest complex terms possible

1. Freedom is not possible without law.
2. Tyranny is possible with law and without.

This relatively simple truth is complex in that it is possible to have two states with the use of law.
It is the gradual growth of laws following the signing of the Magna Carta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta) that created the system of English government and despite some changes the American system of law as well.

Is it possible for the law to become oppressive? Yes.
Is it possible for the law to increase the personal freedoms of the people who live within the law? Yes, ask the regular people who live in Somalia if they'd prefer law to what they have.

Do you know what replaces anarchy (a state of lawlessness) every time?

Tyranny is the state which is inevitable in a place without laws. A strong man will rise up and establish a rule based not on law but whim. An American like yourself, or a Canadian like myself, is lucky enough to not experience that existence. But do not, for a moment, believe that the freedom we have been blessed with is for any reason other than the gradual evolution of the law by which we enjoy the freedoms we have today.

It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light.
It is the law that makes it possible for you to drive without worrying that the police might kidnap you.
It is the law which prevents melamine from being added to your child's baby formula.
It is the law which prevents mob justice, where the fearful fools can be convinced to kill anyone.
It is the law that stops the strong from taking what they want without fear of punishment.

Law frees the weak, and make no mistake, you are among the weak.

   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




reds8n,
here is your quote

"Well...not quite.

Whilst I abhor the sacking of said gentleman for use of the word "niggardly", that does not in any way shape or form make society less "free" than before.

That was a misuse of a law. Somehting that will happen in any human (ie imperfect) society.

If you compare, top of my head example, Rosa Park's freedom to sit on a seat on a bus 60 odd years ago to that of now is she more or less free ? IE laws can indeed make a society more free."

The operative words in your statement are "can" and "imperfect". Especially when the "imperfect leader is of Stalin's stripe.

And looked at from another view. Just because laws give a benefit to the majority does not make society freer.

To use you exact example. Rosa Parks. Under Jim Crow laws, which were used to by the majority, in this case Southern Whites, to oppress a minority, in this case Southern Blacks. Did the Jim Crow laws benefit the majority of society? Yes they did, because Southern Whites were in the majority, populationwise. The majority of people had the right, under Jim Crow laws, to the best seat, the best parks, the best food, voting rights, etc. Did that make the society freer? For the southern whites, who were the majority, yes indeed it did. Did they make society freer for the minority? Most assuredly they did not. If the majority of people in a society are freer does that make the society as a whole freer? I would argue that it does not. The laws took something from one, and gave it to another. That does not make them right or freer. Laws once written, are impersonal. They restrict the actions of what they are applied to. In this case they restricted the actions of one, while not lmiting the actions of another.

Your next argument, again, your quote.

"Oh, and the Nazis, despite the name were not socialist by any way shape or means. You've got to do better than that."

Despite the name, they here indeed socialist.

Socialism: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
De facto government ownership of the means of production was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.
Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
To cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

If smething looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and is called a duck, it is very likely a duck.

**full disclosure*** I did not write the section explaining why Nazi Germany was indeed socialist, I copied and pasted it. However, that does not make it less true.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

Nazi Germany wasn't socialist by any means at all-- their "beef" with the Russians-- what were they called at the time ?-- is quite well documented.

Hitler might even have mentioned similar things in a few of his speeches.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.

Incorrect from the first sentence, there were a ton of companies-- many of them quite famous to this day-- that were in existence at the time.

Did the Jim Crow laws benefit the majority of society? yes they did


No it didn't, that's the key thing.

The laws took something from one, and gave it to another. That does not make them right or freer


No it didn't, what it did was give everyone the same rights. The way you're arguing is like claiming that by giving women the vote took away something from men.

It did/does make people freer, I really can't see how you can claim that laws that ensure racial equality don't contribute towards a freer society.

Again you seem to be treating freedom or benefit as easily quantifiable things, they're not.

You're just repeating the same-- to my eyes -- fallacies over and over again.

Quite a lot of Wild fowl walk and look like ducks, and the noise that ducks make can vary enormously by species. Not as many different sounds as frogs but that's life I guess.

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




efarrer wrote:
Mango wrote:efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. By the very definitions of the words, they do so. Please show me, oh Superior Intellect, how my reading of two simple definitions is flawed.

Your acknowledgment of my superior intellect aside, it is in choosing too simple definitions of the terms that you begin to go wrong.

The world is too complex for simple definitions. Only a true fool would try to divide it that way. Put into the simplest complex terms possible

1. Freedom is not possible without law.
2. Tyranny is possible with law and without.

This relatively simple truth is complex in that it is possible to have two states with the use of law.
It is the gradual growth of laws following the signing of the Magna Carta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta) that created the system of English government and despite some changes the American system of law as well.

Is it possible for the law to become oppressive? Yes.
Is it possible for the law to increase the personal freedoms of the people who live within the law? Yes, ask the regular people who live in Somalia if they'd prefer law to what they have.

Do you know what replaces anarchy (a state of lawlessness) every time?

Tyranny is the state which is inevitable in a place without laws. A strong man will rise up and establish a rule based not on law but whim. An American like yourself, or a Canadian like myself, is lucky enough to not experience that existence. But do not, for a moment, believe that the freedom we have been blessed with is for any reason other than the gradual evolution of the law by which we enjoy the freedoms we have today.

It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light.
It is the law that makes it possible for you to drive without worrying that the police might kidnap you.
It is the law which prevents melamine from being added to your child's baby formula.
It is the law which prevents mob justice, where the fearful fools can be convinced to kill anyone.
It is the law that stops the strong from taking what they want without fear of punishment.

Law frees the weak, and make no mistake, you are among the weak.



Ok Efarrer, now we are getting to the heart of the matter, and I thank you for bringing it up.
"It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light." But what happens when a law is passed that says the Police can do so? Rather than cut and paste all of your examples and placing the phrase "yes but what happens when...." you get the idea.

In that example a law, using a line from reds8n, (thanks for the lay up), is written by an imperfect person. A law that is intended to be a benefit, will often have unintended consequences. For example. For years, people wanted the US to wean itself off of oil. Is that a desirable thing? Most people in the US believe that the United States thirst for oil is a bad thing. From the right, American believe that being so heavily reliant on foreign oil from despotic regimes leaves the US open to coercion from those regimes. From the left, because it hurts the environment, forces the US to have an imperialist foreign policy or whatever else logic the left uses. So i would say that weaning the US off of oil is a desirable thing, one of the few things the right and left in the US do agree on.

So, a law is passed. The law restricts the free choice of every american, by requiring all gasoline have 10% ethanol. You cannot choose to use the non ethanol version, because it is no longer being sold. SO if you have two choices and one is taken away, you have less choices, you are less free.
The theory behind the law was that by adding ethanol to the gas, we would reduce our need to import by 10%. Did that happen? no. We actually have to use MORE gasoline/ethanol mix to fuel our cars, because ethanol is less efficient than gasoline. So instead of say 15mpg with gasoline, you now get 14mpg with ethanol/gasoline, meaning you have to fill up more. Plus people did not change thier driving habits nor did they buy more fuel efficient cars. So did the ethanol aw have its intended consequence of having americans use less oil? No, the amount of oil we imported went UP after the law was passed.

But, it gets worse. A law passed with the best of intentions, now starts having other consequences. Corn, the primary source of material for ethanol, is also used in food. More corn started being used for ethanol production, and less was being used for food production. The first effect of this was it drove prices of corn worldwide, higher. The amount of corn that can be grown is limited by arable land available to used to grow corn. (and this was further limited by expanding population centers,, as well as zoning laws that limit what uses land can be used for, as well as laws protecting endangerd species(you can't change ther habitat), and other laws that were passed (with the best of intentions, mind you). So we have restrictions (both natural and manmade) on how much corn can be produced. Nw, this increase in the price of corn caused the price of food to go up. In western countries this did not hurt so much. We grumbled, but continued our lives much as we had before. But, people did change, in less obvious ways. People started buying rice. A higher demand for rice, led to price increaes for rice. This again did not have a major impact in the West. however, people in poorer african, pacific island, asian, our carribean countries this caused food shortages and riots because they could not afford to buy rice. (riots specifically happened in Haiti)

So every year, more laws get passed. they allow society to fuction. Then more laws get passed. They benefit some, hurt others. For example. raising taxes on the wealthy, and spreading it to the poor. Does it benefit the majority? in this case the poor, yes. Does it hurt the wealthy? Yes, taking money from a person punishes them. (that s why courts impose fines). Ratioalizing that because the wealthy have more they can afford more does not make it right. That is like ratioanlizing that thensouthern whites were more, so they deserved more. So, I still say laws restrict freedom, the more laws the less free, especially because laws are written by imperfect people, and especially because they do lead to abuse.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

But of course without laws any "abuse" is going to be worse isn't it.

There's very few laws in places like Darfur, but the people who live there aren't as free as people in the USA.

For example. raising taxes on the wealthy, and spreading it to the poor. Does it benefit the majority? in this case the poor, yes. Does it hurt the wealthy? Yes, taking money from a person punishes them. (that s why courts impose fines). Rationalizing that because the wealthy have more they can afford more does not make it right. That is like rationalizing that the southern whites were more, so they deserved more


That's a terrible comparison.

taxes from "the rich" pay for things like schools, roads, police etc etc. They benefit just as much as "the poor" from these things, more so in many cases.

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




Efarrer, I am glad that both of us have toned down the venom in our posts and are proceding more rationally. It makes for a better conversation.

I am assuming of course that when you called me weak that you were referring to the weakness of an indiviual compared to a government, and not making a personal attack, and worded my post to be less hostile, while still disagreeing with you.

Now on to some of the other arguments that you and others have posted that I have not addressed yet.

For example, Indian independence. For 60 years, or so, various Indian groups talked about independence. Yet they were still not indepedent. It took a a combination of a financially strapped England whose economy was strapped after two majr wars, and whose population had been decimated (using the modern take on the word, as severely hurt, not a 10% loss) by those same wars, and whose populations were also sick and tired of wars, to be threatened with the spectre of another war, and make no mistake, regardless of wether or not Ghandi preached non violence, it was the threat of a wider war as evidenced by the mutiny of the Indian navy that led england to grant independence. So, fro a human perspective talk had accoplished little independence for 60 years. One action, a mutiny, was wat caused the change to happen, and it happened suddenly.

Another argument that I put forth that someone argued was not valid was the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. The person that said that was a bad example because the Roman Empire lasted arguably until the fall of constantinople a 1000 or so years later. However, I was not referring to the Roman Empire. I was specifically referring to the Roman Republic. Julius ceasar toppled the Roman republic. Before Ceasar crossed the rubicon, there was a republic. after, there was an Empire. That from a human and a historical perspective is extremely rapid. And was caused not by mmoderate talk, but by a sudden action from a person arguing from a pole. In this case Julius arguing (by use of war) that the Republic was not as good a system as the empire.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




If there are additional posts that you would like me to address, please point them out, and as time permits today, I will get to them.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




reds8n wrote:But of course without laws any "abuse" is going to be worse isn't it.

There's very few laws in places like Darfur, but the people who live there aren't as free as people in the USA.

For example. raising taxes on the wealthy, and spreading it to the poor. Does it benefit the majority? in this case the poor, yes. Does it hurt the wealthy? Yes, taking money from a person punishes them. (that s why courts impose fines). Rationalizing that because the wealthy have more they can afford more does not make it right. That is like rationalizing that the southern whites were more, so they deserved more


That's a terrible comparison.

taxes from "the rich" pay for things like schools, roads, police etc etc. They benefit just as much as "the poor" from these things, more so in many cases.


No, reds, it is not a terrible comparison. For example 10 people decide to go to a bar. The first does not pay a cover charge to get in. The second pays $1. The third pays $2. The fourth pays $3. The forth pays $4. numbers 5-9 pay $5. The 10th pays $10. They then go to the bar. The person who paid no money to get in, gets his beer for free. The person who paid 1$ to get in pays $1 for his beer. The one who paid $2 to get in pays $2 for his beer. The one who paid $3, pays $3, they on who paid $4 pays $4 again, the ones who paid $5, again pay $5 for thier beer. The one that was charged $10 to get in, is charged $10 for his beer. They all went to the same bar, listened to the same music, drank the same bear, wartched the same sports on the tele. The only difference is one did it for free, one paid $2 and so on, until one paid $20. Is that fair?
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Reds,
Again, if someone says you own your house, do you own it? Would you feel the same way if, even though you owned it, someone could tell you that a family of 4 is allowed to move in and pay you only $1 in rent? You can still live in the house, and you get a dollar for rent. But do you still own the house if the disposition of the house is no longer your decision?
   
Made in ca
Inexperienced VF-1A Valkyrie Brownie




Mango wrote:
Ok Efarrer, now we are getting to the heart of the matter, and I thank you for bringing it up.
"It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light." But what happens when a law is passed that says the Police can do so? Rather than cut and paste all of your examples and placing the phrase "yes but what happens when...." you get the idea.


You've hit the crux of your problem right there. There is no such law and has not been. There are laws that protect you from that so until your fantasy comes to pass the the law protects even you. In each case I presented the current laws protect you from that, typically with multiple layers of redundancy. (So even if someone were to try to pass such a law it would take so many changes to the law that all citizens could work to prevent such a law). Ultimately it is the citizen's responsibility to ensure that their freedom is protected, so paying attention is the requirement of freedom, but the laws (from Access to Information to voting laws) work to protect that freedom.

That's why the Bush Administrations attempts to circumvent legislative process scared the left (and some of the right) in your country. Any attempts to change or circumvent legal process must be watched and cut down, because tyrants try to avoid or abuse the law (as law does not apply to a tyrant- Ventari has it right on that front). The great thing about a good law is that it is patient.

Justice delayed does not mean forever denied.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing Unless you'd care to argue that the laws used to convict in this case were bad in some way. Thus the law protects and avenges.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:It does not have to be bigger than that. That is exactly my point. every time a freedom is restricted, you become less free. Even if it is a small loss of a freedom, it is still a loss of a freedom. Small losses add up. 1 penny is not worth much. 2 pennies are still not worth much, but add a penny a minute, and very soon you will have a substantial amount of money. The whole jist of my argument is that laws are passed every year. Everyyear we are less free.
Freedom is the ability to choose for yourself, free from constaints. That is the established definition. 10 years ago could I ride a bicycle? Did I have to wear a helmet? No. today it is illegal to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet. Is wearing a helmet a good idea? Yes. But did my ability to choose wether or not to wear it get taken from me by law? Yes. Did a law get passed limiting my ability to choose? yes. So if my freedom was lessened, am I less free? YES


No, the problem is lack of context, to the point where you think something as utterly trivial as fireworks is worth worrying about compared to the improvements made over the same period of time.

When you demand that I give a big example of a loss of freedom what you are trying to do, is change the parameters of the debate. None of you has refuted my basic argument that laws restrict freedom and that more laws equates to less freedom.


Alright, Lenny Bruce was convicted in the 70s, and wouldn't be today. A place where government once had laws and doesn't now.

What about a law passed to protect the ability to vote, for instance a law that said every individual has the right to go to a polling booth and make his vote without being attacked by private citizens of government. If a state passed that law, would society be more or less free afterwards?

But you want a big example of how people are less fre today than they were 25 years ago? here it is.
In january 1999, David Howard was an official in the DC mayor's office. He was discussing his administration of a fund. He said that hi was being "niggardly" in the administration of the fund. He lost his job for using a word. worse, he lost his job for using a word ina grammaticlly correct way, and in the proper context.

Before anyone gets thier knickers in a twist, here is the definition of the word niggardly:
1 : grudgingly mean about spending or granting : begrudging
2 : provided in meanly limited supply

So, he lost his job for speaking correctly. That is a loss of freedom.


Oh dear, before you cite examples you might want to check them. Howard resigned, was later offered his job back but instead took a different position at the university. Howard himself says he wasn't victimised, but had learnt from the incident and come to understand a more sophisticated view of race.

This case is quite famous for the attempts of the 'PC gone made' crowd to try and make it into something it isn't. Maybe next time before taking up the banner to defend someone's rights you should check to see if the assumed victim agrees with you.

1.So give me an example of a representative socialist system that is freer than a capitalist republic.
2. Show me how more laws and regulations make you more free.


You're going to need to provide definitions of free, capitalist and republic. From the proper definition of capitalism and socialism, you run into the issue that every Western democracy is both. But you're probably looking at the definitions used in pundit land... So please, define free, socialism and capitalism and we can move forward with your question.

Again your words:
"Your analogy uses the single instance of one guy painting his army and so is a bad analogy. See, in your example the guy painting his army does so alone, reliant on no-one else. But in the real case, the individual and his pay packet, things are nowhere near as simple. The firm you work for exists because of the corporation, property and contract laws written by the state. The work you do on your computer is product of the research and innovations of thousands. The desk you write at is the result of the manufacturing of a few more dozen. The road you took to get to work is the result of hundreds more, funded by government.

The job you do is one link in a vastly complex supply chain. To take your paycheck at the end of the day, pretend it's entirely the product of your own brow, and the tax drawn from it is the product of some external factor is absolute lunacy. "

Using your logic, the person with the models did not act alone either. Did he make the paints? No. Did he make the brushes? no. Did he make the odels? no. Others made the paints, others made the models, others drove trucks to get themodels to the store where they wer purchased. You did not refute my argument. you disagreed with it. That is an opinion.


No, I disagreed with your underlying thought process, which ignored the place of the individual in the greater economy.

Meanwhile, you failed to dispute that the guy taking his paycheck is just one part of complex system, as the tax levied from his pay is another part. You just said 'well that's your opinion and I have mine'. So come on then, do you agree with the premise 'the individual working at a company is part of a complex economic and social system, with input from countless individuals, companies and government throughout the value chain'.


Mango wrote:No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.


Well I hadn't bothered to dispute it before now (see my Lenny Bruce and voting arguments above). I hadn't bothered because there is so much else wrong with your argument. You are ignoring the idea that there are other freedoms than freedom from government. You are ignoring that freedom isn't the only possible good. Instead you keep to this impossibly narrow corridor of only seeing laws being passed. While there are problems with the facts of your claim, the biggest problem is still 'well who cares'. There are simply so many issues tied into the issue of government and law that are bigger that 'there are more laws this year than there were last year'.

“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




having benefits and perks does not equate to personal freedom. (ok,ok, PART of the definition of freedom I posted clearly states the absence of necessity, which could mean the absence of material necessity, ie plenty of food and water) but that is only part of freedom.

let's look at a different example. A child living in hisparents home.
He is provided health care by his parents.

He is provided shelter by his parents.

he his provided food by his parents.

he is provided clothing by his parents.

he is provided protection from strangers by his parents.

he is given an education by his parents.

His parents provide him with entertainment.

Does a child get a whole host of benefits from his parents? Yes

Would the child be able to survive without his parents? That depend on many factors, such as the age of the child and where they live.

Can the child leave his parents at anytime they wish? Technically, yes. But as the child is dependent upon thier parents, then practically, no the child cannot leave at any time they wish.


Overall, does the child benefit from living with his parents? Yes indeed the child does. Is the child free? No

Do the parents decide what clothes the child wears? Yes
Does the parent decide where the child will live? yes
Does the parent decide what time the child will go to bed? yes
Does the parent decide what the child will eat? yes
Does the parent get to choose who the child plays with? yes
Does the parent get to decide what the child learns? yes
Does the parent get to decide what religion the child has? Yes

Do the parents have the welfare of the child at heart? yes.
Do the parents love their child? yes
Does that mean the child is free? No

That is one of the reasons that children leave their parents home, to start making decisions for themselves.

So again, benefits and material things do not equate to freedom.

I personally believe, (and this is just a personal opinion)
that I should have more freedom and responsibility for the course of my life, than a government. Part of freedom, which the socially conscious people of the left try to gloss over, is freedom to succeed comes with the price of the freedom to fail. A just government is impossible. It is possible to have a governbment that is more just than another. Part of that is providing equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.






   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




sebster,
Is there a difference between being asked to resign and resigning of your own free will? Mr Howard was indeed asked to resign and he did so. In real life when your boss asks you to resign, no technically you are not being fired. You choose to resign. But if your boss asks you to resign, it means that if you do not, you will be fired. The big difference is that if the person voluntarilly resigns, the former employer will provide a reference. If they are fired, they do not get the reference, which makes it harder ot get a job.

But the plain truth of the matter is that he was forced to leave a job because of a word. That he was later offered the job back does not change the fact that he was forced out of the job in the first place.

And I did check those facts, mostly because I live in Washington DC, and did do at hte time the event occured, and followed it very closely. My gues is you did a quick google search and pounced on the frst article you came across. Which does indeed limit ones viewpoint.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




sebster,
your quote
"No, I disagreed with your underlying thought process, which ignored the place of the individual in the greater economy.

Meanwhile, you failed to dispute that the guy taking his paycheck is just one part of complex system, as the tax levied from his pay is another part. You just said 'well that's your opinion and I have mine'. So come on then, do you agree with the premise 'the individual working at a company is part of a complex economic and social system, with input from countless individuals, companies and government throughout the value chain'. "

see my previous post about the 10 guys going to a bar.
   
Made in ca
Inexperienced VF-1A Valkyrie Brownie




Mango wrote:having benefits and perks does not equate to personal freedom. (ok,ok, PART of the definition of freedom I posted clearly states the absence of necessity, which could mean the absence of material necessity, ie plenty of food and water) but that is only part of freedom.

I personally believe, (and this is just a personal opinion)
that I should have more freedom and responsibility for the course of my life, than a government. Part of freedom, which the socially conscious people of the left try to gloss over, is freedom to succeed comes with the price of the freedom to fail. A just government is impossible. It is possible to have a governbment that is more just than another. Part of that is providing equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.








If you don't believe you have more freedom of action then your government you have no understanding of bureaucracy.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:Despite the name, they here indeed socialist.


What do you mean, despite the name? 'Socialist' was in their name. National Socialist German Workers Party. The silly idea that Nazi fascism can be considered socialism came from the inclusion of socialism in the name of the party.

Thing is, the word socialism was included late in the day to broaden the base of the party. They never had anything close to socialist policy.

Second thing, the Night of Long Knives, in which Hitler and his inner circle murdered the leadership of the SA, was undertaken in large part because the better recognised leaders of the SA espoused socialist views.

Third thing, the rise of fascism was a response to the rise of communism. Once he had power, the first people Hitler turned on where the communists. This was the same in Italy, and in Spain the fascist coup overthrew a socialist government. Thing is, exactly what fascism represents is a tricky thing. It has been quite different in each country... the only really common underlying link is perhaps that it grows out of a resistance to communism.

Fourth thing, no-one in Germany at the time was going around at the time thinking it was socialism. Hitler was supported by the conservative aristocracy because despite a dislike of his working class ideas, he was the strong man against communism.

It just isn't a thing that can be debated. The Nazis weren't socialist.

As for your argument, I don't know who you're reading but you should give them up. They're lying to you or they're lying to themselves, to justify modern political point scoring. It badly misrepresents the Nazi system of corporatism (where corporations were tasked with meeting national goals but were still given considerable freedom and were expected to compete, and industry outside the cores of infrastructure and war were still private). The claim that the Nazi government caused inflation is worse, inflation was rampant under the previous Weimar government, and it was that hyper-inflation that was a major cause in Hitler's rise to power - that's just a dreadful lie you've been told.

**full disclosure*** I did not write the section explaining why Nazi Germany was indeed socialist, I copied and pasted it. However, that does not make it less true.


Wherever you pasted this from, they have little or no understanding of the rise of Nazism. I mean seriously, thinking inflation was a Nazi thing... inflation is a massive issue in Germany and a major part of the rise to power. When kids do modern history in middle school, they might spend a week on WWII, and that means a day on Germany. In that day they'll be told about the inflation in the Weimar Republic, and how that was a major cause in the rise of extremist parties like the Nazis and the Communists. To get that basic thing confused... it's like writing a new insightful analysis of the first Gulf War, but getting confused and thinking Saddam won.

“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




reds8n wrote:Nazi Germany wasn't socialist by any means at all-- their "beef" with the Russians-- what were they called at the time ?-- is quite well documented.

Hitler might even have mentioned similar things in a few of his speeches.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.

Incorrect from the first sentence, there were a ton of companies-- many of them quite famous to this day-- that were in existence at the time.

Did the Jim Crow laws benefit the majority of society? yes they did


No it didn't, that's the key thing.

The laws took something from one, and gave it to another. That does not make them right or freer


No it didn't, what it did was give everyone the same rights. The way you're arguing is like claiming that by giving women the vote took away something from men.

It did/does make people freer, I really can't see how you can claim that laws that ensure racial equality don't contribute towards a freer society.

Again you seem to be treating freedom or benefit as easily quantifiable things, they're not.

You're just repeating the same-- to my eyes -- fallacies over and over again.

Quite a lot of Wild fowl walk and look like ducks, and the noise that ducks make can vary enormously by species. Not as many different sounds as frogs but that's life I guess.


The Jim crow laws DID benefit one part of society, they benefited the southern white. They got better schools, better seating on a bus, better parks et al. The underlying legal argument of the Jim crow laws was "seperate but equal". that was explicitly refuted in Suprem Court rulings that stated that separate but equal was not what was happening. It was sepearate AND unequal.

**clarification** I am a firm believer in women voting. I see it every time I go to the voting booth, so I know that it is true. They do vote. : )
All jokes aside, I also believe that a woman has every right to vote, just as a man does. I also believe women voting is a desirable thing.

With that being said, Giving women the right to vote did indeed take something from men. If you have a democracy, and 10 people live in it. 5 are men. 5 are women. However women do not have the right to vote. Therefore each man's vote is 1/5 of the total vote. If however one day you give women the right to vote, each man's vote now only is 1/10 of the total vote. You have diluted the power and effect of one mans vote. Therefore you did take something from him.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:sebster,
your quote
"No, I disagreed with your underlying thought process, which ignored the place of the individual in the greater economy.

Meanwhile, you failed to dispute that the guy taking his paycheck is just one part of complex system, as the tax levied from his pay is another part. You just said 'well that's your opinion and I have mine'. So come on then, do you agree with the premise 'the individual working at a company is part of a complex economic and social system, with input from countless individuals, companies and government throughout the value chain'. "

see my previous post about the 10 guys going to a bar.


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.

Oh and the bit about India, I spent a bit of time referring to some old reading material for that, and it's more than a little rude for you to just ignore it after you asked for examples.

“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





Mango wrote:sebster,
Is there a difference between being asked to resign and resigning of your own free will? Mr Howard was indeed asked to resign and he did so. In real life when your boss asks you to resign, no technically you are not being fired. You choose to resign. But if your boss asks you to resign, it means that if you do not, you will be fired. The big difference is that if the person voluntarilly resigns, the former employer will provide a reference. If they are fired, they do not get the reference, which makes it harder ot get a job.

But the plain truth of the matter is that he was forced to leave a job because of a word. That he was later offered the job back does not change the fact that he was forced out of the job in the first place.

And I did check those facts, mostly because I live in Washington DC, and did do at hte time the event occured, and followed it very closely. My gues is you did a quick google search and pounced on the frst article you came across. Which does indeed limit ones viewpoint.


No, I remember it as well. I've a long history of 'PC gone made types' and that case took everyone's attention. And you ignored the absolute key point, the guy at the centre of the case didn't think he was victimised. Who are you to come in and declare he was done wrong?

Meanwhile, you ignored my Lenny Bruce point. Asking a question then ignoring a difficult answer is the height of ignorance.

“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,
i provided an example of what socialism is. Again I used a definition. The article I posted showed how while not "officially" socialism, nazi Germany was socialist. That is what the "de facto" part means.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

What about a tyranny?

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




sebster wrote:
Mango wrote:sebster,
Is there a difference between being asked to resign and resigning of your own free will? Mr Howard was indeed asked to resign and he did so. In real life when your boss asks you to resign, no technically you are not being fired. You choose to resign. But if your boss asks you to resign, it means that if you do not, you will be fired. The big difference is that if the person voluntarilly resigns, the former employer will provide a reference. If they are fired, they do not get the reference, which makes it harder ot get a job.

But the plain truth of the matter is that he was forced to leave a job because of a word. That he was later offered the job back does not change the fact that he was forced out of the job in the first place.

And I did check those facts, mostly because I live in Washington DC, and did do at hte time the event occured, and followed it very closely. My gues is you did a quick google search and pounced on the frst article you came across. Which does indeed limit ones viewpoint.


No, I remember it as well. I've a long history of 'PC gone made types' and that case took everyone's attention. And you ignored the absolute key point, the guy at the centre of the case didn't think he was victimised. Who are you to come in and declare he was done wrong?

Meanwhile, you ignored my Lenny Bruce point. Asking a question then ignoring a difficult answer is the height of ignorance.


Sebster,
When a corporation is sued by an individual, the corporation will often settle out of court. This often includes the corporation paying money to the individual. The reasons companies do this, is often even if a company does not think it did anything wrong, and maight even think they would win if the lawsuit went all the way through the courts, they will still settle out of court. Why? to avoid the bad publicity and monetary expense that comes with a law suit. However, often part of the settlement, is not only the person recieving money, that person alos has to retract thier original statements.

Another example of this, is Michael Vick. Currently in jail for dog fighting. He is currently trying to curry favor with animal rights groups, offering to do commercials for them decrying violence towards animals. Making other public sttaements apologizing for his actions. Saying his actions were horriifc. Now one school of thought, is that he has truly seen the error of his ways and repented. The other school of thought, is he lost a lot of money from this episode. More importantly, when he was suspended indefinitely from the NFL, he lost the potentail to make income when he gets out of jail. One way to regain his elligibilty to play in the NFL upon his release, is to do a masive mea culpa and become an animal rights activist. So this school of thought is that he still does give a rats arse about animal rights, he merely wants to play in the NFL again and regain his lost money. We cannot read his mind, so legally, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. However I and most people I know, think he has not changed his attitude towards animal rights, he just wants more mone.

Much the same way a deal could have been reached with Mr Howard. He lost his job. (wether completely of his own free will or by force is debatable). He still lost his job. he would have been able to sue. This at minimum would have been extremely costly to the District of Columbia, just in light of the costs associated with a legal battle. The costs to Mr Howard would likely have been born by someone else. (the ACLU comes to mind). To avoid the costly legal battle, is it likely that Mr Howard is offered a higher paying job with another institution, that the powers that be have influence with, as long as he makes a public statement that he was not a victim, and further, to allow both parties to save face and allow the public embarassment to die down, get his old job offered back, so he can decline it?


The problem I have with big intrusive governments can be summed up in the following quote. I do not know who first said it.

"a government that is pwerful enough to give you everything you want, is a government powerful enough to take it all away"

The more authority and power a government has, the less power a and authority the governed have. People in power have a tendency to abuse thier power, and alos have a tendency to try to gain more power. The difference between a benevolent socialist dictatorship and a tyranical one is only the people in charge. One the mechanisms for societal control are in place, those mechanisms can easily be subverted to other uses. For example. Traffic cameras installed to allow people to see where traffic is heaviest, and plan and reroute their morning commute accordingly. A beneficial state of affairs, right? Now what happens when the government uses those same cameras to track the movements of the citizens? Again, if used to find evidence of a crime, such as a hit and run accident, again, that is a good thing. But remember, a government decides what is a crime and what is not. So what if the government deides to become a dictatorship. It nowhas in place a system with which it can monitor the movement of its citizens. If the overnment can monitor you location, it can monitor just about everything about you. It can also find and imprison you at will. Again if this is uded to find someone who is a murderer, great. But what if the government decides that disagreeing with one of it's policies is a capital crime?

That is what I have been trying to get at with all of my arguments on laws and restrictions. A law put in place for one reason can have multiple effects, far beyond what was originally intended.




   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Sebster,
I had to look up Lenny Bruce. I was not familiar with his case. Anyway, I feel he proves my point more than yours. Free speech, one of the main laws enshrined in the constitution. Then MORE laws get passed. in this case obsenity laws. laws that restrict free speech. So Lenny says some words. Gets hounded by police and authorities for large parts of his career. Finally dies of an overdose. That was in the 60's. You say he wouldn't be arrested today.

However, if you curse on the radio today, you can be fined by the FCC. So limitations to free speech still exist.

look at the SuperBowl with the infamous wardrobe malfunction. the courts have decided that physical acts can be 'speech" for example, the burning of the US flag has been determined to be constitutionally protected free speech. So it could be argued that the wardrobe malfunction, which the performers admitted was not a mistake, could be constued as artistic free speech. The FCC did not see it that way, and a fine wqasimposed, and new regulations imposed that even live broadcasts must have a delay, so future "malfunctions" or words can be bleeped out.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Sebster,
The "hieght of ignorance" is rich. you have done the exact same thing in previous posts in this thread. I am not saying this in a vindictive tone, just pointing out the irony in that statement.

But you are indeed correct in stating the height of ignorance is ignoring. Since by definition ignorance is lack of knowledge, and ignoring is the willful choice to refuse to aknowledge a thing. Which means you choose not only to be ignorant, but also choose to remain ignorant.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




I am going to take a break from posting for a bit. I will check back later. But I am definitely enjoying this debate. Thank you all for participating.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:Sebster,
i provided an example of what socialism is. Again I used a definition. The article I posted showed how while not "officially" socialism, nazi Germany was socialist. That is what the "de facto" part means.


You copy and pasted from some guy who thought Nazi policy caused the hyperinflation. The guy simply has no idea what he's talking about.

When I point this out to you, you ignore and repeat your initial premise. Please explain to me how you can take anyone commentary on the economic policies of Nazi Germany seriously when they can't get something as simple as the causes and effects of hyperinflation correct.

Mango wrote:Much the same way a deal could have been reached with Mr Howard. He lost his job. (wether completely of his own free will or by force is debatable). He still lost his job. he would have been able to sue. This at minimum would have been extremely costly to the District of Columbia, just in light of the costs associated with a legal battle. The costs to Mr Howard would likely have been born by someone else. (the ACLU comes to mind). To avoid the costly legal battle, is it likely that Mr Howard is offered a higher paying job with another institution, that the powers that be have influence with, as long as he makes a public statement that he was not a victim, and further, to allow both parties to save face and allow the public embarassment to die down, get his old job offered back, so he can decline it?


What are you talking about? The guy was offered his old job back, and instead took up a different position. Now you’re inventing some kind of compromise deal that must have taken place. Do you have any reason to suspect such a compromise occurred?

There’s a fine line between outspoken and nutter, and once you start inventing realities to protect your theory you start threatening to cross that line.

The problem I have with big intrusive governments can be summed up in the following quote. I do not know who first said it.

"a government that is pwerful enough to give you everything you want, is a government powerful enough to take it all away"


Again, just restating your original premise. It’s a nice bumper sticker but a long way short of full and reasoned debate.

The more authority and power a government has, the less power a and authority the governed have. People in power have a tendency to abuse thier power, and alos have a tendency to try to gain more power. The difference between a benevolent socialist dictatorship and a tyranical one is only the people in charge. One the mechanisms for societal control are in place, those mechanisms can easily be subverted to other uses. For example. Traffic cameras installed to allow people to see where traffic is heaviest, and plan and reroute their morning commute accordingly. A beneficial state of affairs, right? Now what happens when the government uses those same cameras to track the movements of the citizens? Again, if used to find evidence of a crime, such as a hit and run accident, again, that is a good thing. But remember, a government decides what is a crime and what is not. So what if the government deides to become a dictatorship. It nowhas in place a system with which it can monitor the movement of its citizens. If the overnment can monitor you location, it can monitor just about everything about you. It can also find and imprison you at will. Again if this is uded to find someone who is a murderer, great. But what if the government decides that disagreeing with one of it's policies is a capital crime?


Yes, one should be aware of the powers of government. I’m a member of Amnesty International and believe the work done by civil libertarians and other groups in ensuring full and accountable government is essential. But your argument, in which nothing but laws are considered, and laws are only see in the context of freedoms restricted and not in freedoms protected… is a terrible argument.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
I had to look up Lenny Bruce. I was not familiar with his case.


So you want to tell everyone your grand theory of free speech but you don’t know who Lenny Bruce was? He was kind of important…

Anyway, I feel he proves my point more than yours. Free speech, one of the main laws enshrined in the constitution. Then MORE laws get passed. in this case obsenity laws. laws that restrict free speech. So Lenny says some words. Gets hounded by police and authorities for large parts of his career. Finally dies of an overdose. That was in the 60's. You say he wouldn't be arrested today.

However, if you curse on the radio today, you can be fined by the FCC. So limitations to free speech still exist.


Lenny Bruce was arrested for comments made in a private club in front of paying customers who were aware of the act Bruce was known to perform. Everyone there was a consenting adult. It is not possible to get a conviction for a similar act today. That was what you asked for, a case where a law that used to exist and doesn’t today.

Want another one? Sodomy was a crime, and now it isn’t. Your argument that government only adds laws and never removes them is bad.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
The "hieght of ignorance" is rich. you have done the exact same thing in previous posts in this thread. I am not saying this in a vindictive tone, just pointing out the irony in that statement.

But you are indeed correct in stating the height of ignorance is ignoring. Since by definition ignorance is lack of knowledge, and ignoring is the willful choice to refuse to aknowledge a thing. Which means you choose not only to be ignorant, but also choose to remain ignorant.


I am not aware of any argument or claim you made that I’ve ignored. If there is one please point it out.

You have been unwilling to address in any way the different ideas presented in this thread. When counter arguments were given you simply repeated your original premise. When you asked for examples they were given and you ignored them… only addressing a few when called out. Even then you’ve given cursory answers and have not once questioned your own central theory.

I call that ignorance.

“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,

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.

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 .


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".

You are a member of amnesty international. Congratulations. I have a United Nations Service Medal. Your point?
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: