Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Oh hell Indie – Can a child choose to be born into advantage or disadvantage – no – so how can they deserve that position?

Can a child choose to be born into advantage or disadvantage? If a child is born into disadvantage is it to blame for that? Does it deserve the disadvantage it had nothing to do with ‘earning’?

 

Indie

Again we have been through this many, many times – I not trying to convince you I’m trying to work out why you hold onto views you seem totally incapable of defending from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

 

Corporations are private sector, and do not govern us. Government, on the other hand makes use of wealth produced within the private sector, and in conjunction with the Fed, the 16th and 17th amendments, activist politicians, courts, and along with reinterpretation of our Constitution is based upon achieving a Left wing agenda, not a Right wing agenda.

 

Bal, I've addressed each of your criticisms more than once, simply not to your liking. I might add that the same is true in my case as I have found nothing you've posted to be more than an emotional plea lacking anything rational or reasonable in dealing with the facts that exist.

 

Bal,

What you seem to propose is a government with power over the people and what they are allowed to do, where those of us on the right would much prefer a government in which the people are not controlled, but the controllers of what their government can do.
You look at a Nation as a single society, while I look at it as many separate societies where people are free to seek out where they can set out and achieve the goals they wish.

 

Part 1 is simply a restatement, which I see no useful purpose in responding to additionally.

Part 2, being born into or getting it through inheritance, is no more than a result of labor or charity, and not theft.

Is there something I'm missing here? I don't see your reasoning that labor, charity, and theft are artificial. Even the earliest of our ancestors had to labor to acquire their needs, likely shared abundant finds with members of their groups, and even stole from one another at times. They may have even had rules which expected or required finds by individuals to be shared with the group and might even have exercised punishment by banishing members from the group for failure to comply.

I might agree, that laws are indeed artificial constructs of humans, and therefore should require the approval of the societies over which they are to be imposed.

 

Bal,

Has anyone suggested reconstituting slavery?

Charity should be based upon need, and government incompetence has raised the question of deserving and undeserving.

I doubt that anything I wrote claimed that I believe in compulsory taxation in the context as you present.

I find no purpose in imaging things when we have real situations needing to be dealt with.

 

Bal,

I do argue against democracy as you seem to feel it should apply.

And you've presented no rational or reasonable argument as to why I should answer "no".

 

By diverse I simply mean that people differ greatly from one another. A most obvious way that produces inequality is the ability of some to solve problems that only confound most others. Progress usually comes about as the result of individual discoveries, or small groups of individuals who may have similar concepts and by working together enlighten us all by making discoveries which benefit societies greatly.

It is the inequalities that exist that has resulted in the great achievements that exist in the modern world today that you continuously harp on as being unfair and unjust. Advantages may avail themselves to many people often, but it is the ones who recognize them and put them to use in ways that benefit us all, while perhaps not equally at first.

 

Obviously since a child has no choice at all in what he/she is born into, the question is not what do they deserve, but instead, should that be allowed to serve as an accepted excuse throughout their life?

Allowing for the fact that you resent the use of real life experiences, all I can say is that I don't see being born into poverty as being such an insurmountable disadvantage as you seem to.

 

yes

 

And Bal, while I also feel no need to convince you, neither do I feel it possible to bring you to fully or even partially understand what is both reasoned and rational, unless it fully coincides with what you have been led to believe.

I've lost track of how many posts this is that I've responded to by you, but I think it is much more than obvious that we are unlikely to ever accomplish anything of value going over the same things perpetually, no matter what the thread topic may be.

While you may be a moderator, are you not exemplifying the definition of trolling?

 

Do you Individual, honestly believe corporate "influence" ends once the politician is elected?

The corporate person governs by proxy.

What else would you expect in a system where corporations are persons and money equals speech? Corporations purchase politicians who govern us. Capiche?

 

I think your question would have appeared to be less biased if you had asked if I believed that the influence of money ends once the politician has been elected. Money flows into politicians campaigns from many sources other than just corporations. Labor unions, wealthy individuals, activist groups, and political party, not to mention the politicians themselves.

If the politician who is being influenced is influenced in a way that benefits or pleases you, does that present a problem for you?

For the power of government to be sourced from the people requires the limitations on government as written in our Constitution to be both understood and complied with by those we allow to hold office, without reinterpretation providing the means by which the ends are accomplished.

Any laws which are not clearly defined in a way that can not be understood by all in the same way leaves great latitude for the application of those laws to be applied on a case by case basis allowing a political agenda to be used a the most relevant basis of determination.

A strong central government is like having a Walmart open up and replace many small shops. You then have a single place to shop for your wants and needs that previously would have required traveling to many shops to acquire the same things, and more cost efficient to boot.

Do you, understand?

 

Ironic, then, that walmart and co. would love a weak conservative government.

 

Ironic, then, that walmart and co. would love a weak conservative government.

Also, this is horrifying:

 

Indie

LOL – not this again – ok again can you actually produce any evidence that you have addressed my criticisms in any rational or reasonable way – you have never been able to do so every other time you’ve made the m claim and I don’t think you can - but please go ahead prove me wrong.

Oh once more with the ‘emotional’ jibe – again you have often claimed this but you never seem able to produce any rational or reasonable arguemet to back it up - I’ll ask you again what is you evidence for this view?

Oh and again with your supposed ‘facts’ that never seem to be facts just your opinions that you seem unable to back up – I’ll ask again what ‘facts’ are you talking about?

And I will repeat you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given more voting powers so it can block or veto the votes of the majority.

Also you have suggested rather draconian ideas to deal with disadvantage, including the forceful removal of children from their parents and the sterilisation of disadvantaged people against their will. I couldn’t contemplate such ideas but you do all too easily it seems.

 

Indie

You said - To sustain life requires the acquisition of basic needs

My reply (even restated) is pointing out that humans need more than just their basic needs catered for in a modern society. You didn’t address that.

Did I say it was theft?

You said - Labor, for example is ones own efforts put to use in producing ones needs (my bold)

Does a baby or child’s personally through its own efforts and labours produce for its needs?

As for charity is what you give to your baby or child charity?

 

Indie

How early are you talking about the earliest hominids probably go back some 14 million years, I though we were discussing civilised man?

If we are talking about hunter gatherer societies they again are not ‘of nature’ they are artificial involving tool making, nets, boats, clothing, rope, etc, etc

If we are talking early urban civilisations, then there were people that were doing work for which they got paid, and that is a shift a long way away from natural.

Today’s modern societies are much further from natural.

Do lions and tigers and bears have rules, deliberations and punishments for breaking such rules?

I think the problem is that I don’t think you understand what you mean by ‘natural’. You seem to be arguing that advantage and disadvantage are ‘natural’ in a kind of evolutionary sense, part of some type of ‘natural selection’ but that kind of selection does not take place in complex artificial human structured societies. Social advantage cannot be passed down like genes it can only be passed down because of the rules and regulations of the structure. For example if a society had an inheritance tax, it would limit the amount of wealth that could be passed on to the next generation – you cannot do that with genes (well not naturally).

I agree - But as pointed out you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given more voting powers so it can block or veto the votes of the majority.

 

Indie

Slavery still exists in the world as does exploitation, it is and has been a reality.

The point is that these types of behaviour have been part of human constructed structures and were lessened or stopped by changing those structures, by for example bringing in new laws, rules and regulations. It therefore follows that such things as disadvantage could be tackled by adapting the structure of a society.

Could you please clarify?

What ‘context’ are you talking about?

This is a dodge to get out of addressing what was said.

And how do you think I’d apply it?

LOL – but I don’t care if you say ‘no’ I’m trying to work out why you say ‘yes’.