|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 24, 2003 22:51:22 GMT -5
As a private business - for profit or not - I support the Church's right to not allow concealed weapons on their premises. Yes, but do you really feel we are carrying out the 2nd amendment the way it was intended? Libertarians don't necessarily trust their fellow man - that's why we want to limit their ability to use the federal government to impose their will on us. We want people to be allowed to live peacefully and independently, making their own decisions about their own lives. As for lynchings and such, well, that would be not living peacefully and independently. It is an initiation of force, which the libertarian credo expressly disapproves of, and we support defensive force being applied by the government in such a situation. But the basic assumption that people would live peacefully and independently if given the chance is somewhat trusting, don't you think? I don't think so. Even with all kinds of money, if the government is not allowed to grant special favors and treatment to anyone, they will have no need to try to excersize any control. I don't really believe people quest for power and control merely because it is easy in this government. The nature of power is to want more. There will always be ways to twist the good for the good of oneself. I stand by the line of thinking that there are criminals in every group of folks and that money corrupts. The chance of having a rotten Libertarian is as great as having a rotten anyone else under the right circumstances. Really, any of the parties, when represented by those who will do anything to be elected, are not being represented by their party's ideology but by selfish desires of one person for themself. I would start by proposing two amendments to the Constitution - the first to abolish the income tax, and the second to state that the government cannot give one person something without giving it also to everyone else. If you abolished the income tax, how would you propose to pay for anything? I have no issue with your other amendment choice. If that were in effect, I think it would all even out. The problem is that now we just attack one issue of inequality at a time. And by fixing one thing, we often create another inequality. Also, I think that no member of government would really want that amendment. It would mean revamping every law we have from how we tax to who gets federal aid for school to EVERYTHING. Too much work. |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 24, 2003 22:53:12 GMT -5
Hey, somehow I meshed your answers and mine up there. Sorry. I am still trying to figure all this crap out.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 24, 2003 23:56:35 GMT -5
Hi Emily, How's the revolution going? Sorry I haven't been paying much attention, but whom are you revolting against? Aside from cj, which I just cannot understand. But that's okay, anyone will tell you I'm slow  I am not revolting against CJ or anyone else for that matter. The revolution is about a multitude of things, not just one. My friend Sayra and I were disgussing our disillusionment with the world and determined we were going to start a revolution of ideas and initiate change. We just want to change the world, make it a nicer place and such. Since then, the phrase has just stuck. It's become something bigger than it started for me. For me, it's become not just a revolution of the world, but a revolution within myself. As far as CJ is concerned, I have no real issue with him. He's funny. I do think that he uses his wit to avoid giving answers to things he doesn't really know how to answer and then says his intention was to make someone else look foolish by his not answering. I think he is somewhat hypocritical in that he tells others to do or not do something or behave or not behave someway that he has observed but he gets defensive when you observe his behavior as anything that could be seen as negative and accuses the observer of being disingenuous. In fact, I have found him to be somewhat defensive in general and I think it is absolutely darling that he is so sensitive. But these are just my observations and it would be unrealistic to think that any who participate in a forum would not make observations of those they communicate with. Furthermore, I would like to add that this is an overall impression of what I have read of his postings and my opinion. I realize I do not really know him any more than he knows me. I enjoy his posts. I hope when CJ responds to this, a picture accompanies his response. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 25, 2003 6:35:27 GMT -5
Yes, but do you really feel we are carrying out the 2nd amendment the way it was intended? No, I think we've limited our access to firearms a lot more than the founders ever intended. But the basic assumption that people would live peacefully and independently if given the chance is somewhat trusting, don't you think? Clearly. That's why we would still have laws against the initiation of force. I don't really believe people quest for power and control merely because it is easy in this government. The nature of power is to want more. There will always be ways to twist the good for the good of oneself. I stand by the line of thinking that there are criminals in every group of folks and that money corrupts. The chance of having a rotten Libertarian is as great as having a rotten anyone else under the right circumstances. Really, any of the parties, when represented by those who will do anything to be elected, are not being represented by their party's ideology but by selfish desires of one person for themself. Oh, I definitely agree. There is no way to keep unscrupulous people from trying to excercize control and grab power. That's why we have to remove the opportunity. If there is no advantage to buying and coercing politicians, no one will try, no matter what party they belong to. If you abolished the income tax, how would you propose to pay for anything? Well, many things would go unfunded, but they should go unfunded. As far as the essentials that our government was created to provide, they could easily be funded by a flat tariff/excise. The beauty of that is that it is self-limiting. When they tax your income more, you just work more. That gives the government unlimited opportunity to expand. With a flat tariff/excise, increasing that would increase the price of the things we buy, which would cause us to buy less. (There's that pesky law of Supply and Demand, again!) So, if they raised it too high, they would actually decrease their revenue, because people would ration their consumption. I have no issue with your other amendment choice. If that were in effect, I think it would all even out. The problem is that now we just attack one issue of inequality at a time. And by fixing one thing, we often create another inequality. Also, I think that no member of government would really want that amendment. It would mean revamping every law we have from how we tax to who gets federal aid for school to EVERYTHING. Too much work. I agree it would be difficult. The biggest hindrance to this amendment is the politicians who grant the favors in the first place. Enacting it would take away all their advantages. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 25, 2003 6:45:03 GMT -5
Hey, somehow I meshed your answers and mine up there. Sorry. I am still trying to figure all this crap out. I fixed it. When using the quotes, just cut and paste the original quote command between and including the brackets in front of anything the person said you want quoted, following it with [ /quote], minus the space. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Oct 25, 2003 9:22:02 GMT -5
I agree with Em to a certain extent. I think, whatever the rules of the game, someone will find a way to profit from playing it. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing in the first place. The problem with any political system is that they're dependent on being executed by people and people are inherently greedy and selfish. It's a survival instinct we never evolved away from.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Oct 25, 2003 14:32:36 GMT -5
Speaking of selfish and greedy, the people I'm really pissed off at right now are our Senators who just voted themselves a nice new raise in the midst of all this belt-tightening all the rest of us are supposed to be doing to get through these new periods of having our money mismanaged for us.
I'm looking for a single Senator to refuse to take the raise. I think many that voted against it did so because they knew it would pass anyway and it looked good politically. I'm waiting for one guy or girl in the Senate to flat-out refuse to accept the raise and admonish the rest of them for their greedy ways. Talent voted against the raise, but unless he refuses to accept it, I won't vote for him next time around.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 25, 2003 17:16:31 GMT -5
Speaking of selfish and greedy, the people I'm really pissed off at right now are our Senators who just voted themselves a nice new raise in the midst of all this belt-tightening all the rest of us are supposed to be doing to get through these new periods of having our money mismanaged for us. I'm looking for a single Senator to refuse to take the raise. I think many that voted against it did so because they knew it would pass anyway and it looked good politically. I'm waiting for one guy or girl in the Senate to flat-out refuse to accept the raise and admonish the rest of them for their greedy ways. Talent voted against the raise, but unless he refuses to accept it, I won't vote for him next time around. - Following through with his perfect record of having never voted for a congressional pay raise, US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Thursday once again voted against an increase in the salary of Members of Congress. "I have never and will never vote to increase Congress' pay; it's shameful that Congress seems to think that they should be raising their own pay at the same time the American people see their taxes increasing, federal spending going up, and the national debt getting larger," said Rep. Paul. "Many Members of Congress say they spend so much time in D.C. that they need more money. I say that not only does Congress not need a pay raise, we need to return to the Constitution, limit what the federal government has its fingers in, cut the time Congress spends in session, and cut the pay congressmen receive." It is sad, said Paul, that at the same time Congress is attempting to increase its own pay, it has been examining ways to reduce the benefits paid to veterans and senior citizens. Not only has Rep. Paul refused to ever vote for a congressional pay raise, but he is also one of the few representatives to turn down the lucrative pension Congress gives itself. "Between the ability to increase pay at their whim and the juicy pension package they give themselves, it is no wonder so few Members of Congress ever leave their office and return to the private sector," said Rep. Paul. "How many Americans can, without thought, grant themselves a pay raise? How many Americans can take part in a pension which pays out the huge sums the congressional pension does? None, because Congress can simply increase taxes to pay the bill. Even the wealthiest of business owners have to answer to the bottom-line profitability of their company; Congress has no such accountability." |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 25, 2003 17:20:42 GMT -5
I agree with Em to a certain extent. I think, whatever the rules of the game, someone will find a way to profit from playing it. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing in the first place. The problem with any political system is that they're dependent on being executed by people and people are inherently greedy and selfish. It's a survival instinct we never evolved away from. I agree. That's why we need to limit the government. If the government's power is limited, there is not much damage those people can do. As it is now, there are few things they can't do. - Rick |
|
