07 Jun 06
Originally posted by 7ate9No, you've abandoned reason and gone with the whim of the sheeple.
...where the majority say no, then it goes to reason that the situation is wrong...?
X% of people saying something does not mean that thing automatically becomes right.
An obvious example might be the graduated tax system i.e. the more you earn the higher the percentage of tax you pay. Less people are in the higher bracket so corrupt pollies slice off a segment of society and buy votes with that segments' money.
"Because they can afford it." is not a reason.
"Because more people say it's OK to take someone elses money." is not a reason.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, it is not a measure of right and wrong.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by Wajomameanwhile, capitalism is one wolf voting what's for dinner while the sheep watch the vote.
No, you've abandoned reason and gone with the whim of the sheeple.
X% of people saying something does not mean that thing automatically becomes right.
An obvious example might be the graduated tax system i.e. the more you earn the higher the percentage of tax you pay. Less people are in the higher bracket so corrupt pollies slice off a segment of socie ...[text shortened]... wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, it is not a measure of right and wrong.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by WajomaWrong. If taxes are not progressive, in terms of utility, the poor will be taxed much more heavily than the rich. In an utilitarian view, progressive monetary taxes are justified.
An obvious example might be the graduated tax system i.e. the more you earn the higher the percentage of tax you pay. Less people are in the higher bracket so corrupt pollies slice off a segment of society and buy votes with that segments' money.
Doing otherwise was taxing less utility from the rich in order to buy their votes.
07 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWrong, on a flat rate someone earning 200k is already paying 4x that of someone on 50k. In terms of utility they are much more likely to purchase private health, education etc.
Wrong. If taxes are not progressive, in terms of utility, the poor will be taxed much more heavily than the rich. In an utilitarian view, progressive monetary taxes are justified.
Doing otherwise was taxing less utility from the rich in order to buy their votes.
Edit: Wrong #2 The rich are a minority so there's no point in corrupt pollies buying their vote.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by WajomaYou didn't get it. The value in terms of utility of 1 dollar for Mr. Gates is less than the value in terms of utility of 1 dollar for his lawnmower.
Wrong, on a flat rate someone earning 200k is already paying 4x that of someone on 50k. In terms of utility they are much more likely to purchase private health, education etc.
Edit: Wrong #2 The rich are a minority so there's no point in corrupt pollies buying their vote.
That's why flat taxes are regressive in terms of utility.
#2. I agree. Getting the rich's support is much more than buying their vote.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672so your solution is no government?
Nice post. I like this, and it's true. People are scary. Your post is why I believe government should be as small as possible. Police, fire, and ambulance. They can't do anything else. Roads, maybe, and sewers, but I just got a hell of a bill for that too, so I wouldn't know the difference if a private company built them or if the government did. ...[text shortened]... e hell of a bad job protecting peoples' rights. Why the hell do we even allow it to exist?
07 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672i guess i'm just not for anarchy. 90% of the laws are not bad. You can't legalize marajuana, you can't have people walking around stoned. You smoke a bowl and you are immediatly impaired...you can't have a society where you can just get stoned at will, anywhere. And you can't make it even easier for children to get ahold of it, which legalizing it would do.
Do you have a better idea?
Police, fire, ambulance. Most government at the local level. Let economics determine most things.
One of our country's founding principles is that government exists only to preserve peoples' rights. This government takes away rights of ordinary citizens every day, and preserves rights only if you're a fat eno hould that be regulated?), welfare, Title IX - I mean just keep going. 90% of laws are bad.
Secondly, with no government who would be in charge of the nation's defense, economy, boarders? Where would the states get the money to handle these issues? Who would have juristiction when criminals cross state lines? Do we have to have a law manual for each state so we know the different laws from state to state? IF ONE STATE DECIDES TO LEGALIZE MURDER IS THAT OK? I could go on forever.
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672Even heard that consumption in the Netherlands has increased, but that consumption of Dutch people has decreased. Apparently, seeing stoned turists all the time has decreased the willingness of Dutch people to smoke it themselves.
Legalizing murder doesn't fit the philosophy of our style of government. The murdered person's rights will have been, to say the least, violated. Holland legalized marijuana, they're still around...can you explain to me the difference between being drunk and being stoned? What about leaving government to parents? When you say "you can't make it easi ...[text shortened]... ss our borders right now by the thousands every day - who's in charge of them right now?
Does anyone confirm/deny this?
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by PalynkaAnecdotaly I go along with this, my observations were that tourists coming from a controlled environment let lose and end up getting thoroughly wasted, while the locals had a more mature attitude. I was also in the UK when they relaxed the drinking laws, all the busybodies were screeching "We're to be turned to alcoholics eeeee eeeee" but of course nothing like that happened and gone was the need to gulp your drink before afternoon closing.
Even heard...themselves.
Does anyone confirm/deny this?
You didn't get it. The value in terms of utility of 1 dollar for Mr. Gates is less than the value in terms of utility of 1 dollar for his lawnmower.
I don't presume to assign values for other people, It seems that is for the control freaks such as yourself. Odd that you use Bill Gates, on top of outrageous tax he pays, he donates more to charities than you could hope to in 10 lifetimes.