[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078748]" have the right to do what other people have the right to do"
you didnt specify anything that gays can or cant do. are you saying gays are legally barred from prospering in society in an absolute fashion?
you clearly are ignorant.[/QUOTE]
[quote]learn to not distort what i said, then ill answer properly[/quote]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078717]I disagree. Are you okay with the government taxing anything?[/QUOTE]
as i said before i am in favor of inheritance taxes, but also excise taxes
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078748]" have the right to do what other people have the right to do"
you didnt specify anything that gays can or cant do. are you saying gays are legally barred from prospering in society in an absolute fashion?
you clearly are ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Well they aren't afforded the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, and as HumanAbyss just said, can't see their partner while in a hospital room the same way heterosexuals can.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078762]...[/QUOTE]
your literal inference of "distort" doesnt save you here, try again.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078771]Well they aren't afforded the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, and as HumanAbyss just said, can't see their partner while in a hospital room the same way heterosexuals can.[/QUOTE]
refer to s0beit's post if you missed it, thank you.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078766]as i said before i am in favor of inheritance taxes, but also excise taxes[/QUOTE]
Inheritance taxes might, but excise taxes for sure don't provide enough for a functioning government in a real world to work.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078766]as i said before i am in favor of inheritance taxes, but also excise taxes[/QUOTE]
Then we will have to agree to disagree, on this issue at least. As for the issue of LGBT rights, I'd like to continue that discussion.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078704]sounds great, but we both know what you said there is, well, meaningless.[/QUOTE]
How so? One of the major reasons behind these giant "virtual" monopolies (limited choice in a regulated environment, so i call them virtual monopolies, as they consist of several super-large companies who are just skating under regulation) gaining so much power is the intellectual property system.
It kills competition more than any law on the books right now, government subsidy aside.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078788]Inheritance taxes might, but excise taxes for sure don't provide enough for a functioning government in a real world to work.[/QUOTE]
which is why we have this thing called spending cuts.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29078530]I had this discussion with somebody the other day.
Your position doesn't state it isn't robbery but rather that it is robbery, it's just for the greater good of society.
Sorry but often money doesn't just go to the poor or disadvantaged and even when it does you can't be sure the person agrees philosophically with your subjective position.
The very reason it is robbery is because it is devoid of choice at all. If you don't pay you are punished, you can't decide which services to pay for or keep funding from.
If there were a sliver of choice in the matter it might not be robbery, assuming they want to pay taxes at all. I would allow people to choose which programs to pay for, or none at all, and bar them from utilizing the services (or other services) if they chose to not taxed at all. It's the only real way it isn't robbery. [/QUOTE]
Actually our money goes into social programs that actively helps poor people. The people we vote into government agrees with the same philosophically positions as the people do. We can easily talk to our representetives and make sure they actually do as we want. We can at any time look up what they think and decide on what we want to vote for.
Well of course you don't like it that you can't control where the money goes but isn't it better for the entire infrastructure and society that they recieve money? Isn't it better that we have elected representetives that make sure the money goes into what we want? I don't know since America only have two parties to vote for but here in Sweden we have: 8. Alot of people that represents everyone.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078774]your literal inference of "distort" doesnt save you here, try again.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
refer to s0beit's post if you missed it, thank you.[/QUOTE]
all you did was twist my post, you didn't even really reply. You're just putting words in my mouth. Are you saying gays don't, and wouldn't have to undergo any sort of discrimination if states rights were valued and they weren't forced to basically recognize human rights?
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078774]your literal inference of "distort" doesnt save you here, try again.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
refer to s0beit's post if you missed it, thank you.[/QUOTE]
Then yes, I agree that government shouldn't be involved in marriage and both Heteros and Homos should have the same rights, and if government is involved, they should be afforded the same tax breaks.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078791]Then we will have to agree to disagree, on this issue at least. As for the issue of LGBT rights, I'd like to continue that discussion.[/QUOTE]
once society and government both stop collectivizing and grouping people then we can achieve real progress in civil rights.
it all boils down to the individual, not labeling them as x y or z
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078732]clearly the main topic is american politics. maybe you should have taken that into account beforehand?
[/quote]This discussion is more about socialised health care, to be honest.
[quote]
learn to not distort what i said, then ill answer properly[/QUOTE]
I don't really see how I distorted it, but fine:
[quote]because then people begin to rely on the government for everything for fear of financial insecurity.[/quote]
Elaborate.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078814]all you did was twist my post, you didn't even really reply. You're just putting words in my mouth. Are you saying gays don't, and wouldn't have to undergo any sort of discrimination if states rights were valued and they weren't forced to basically recognize human rights?[/QUOTE]
the constitution grants rights to all born persons, im sure you missed my point as well. you also didnt do a good job at elaborating or specifying what you were referring to.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29078792]How so? One of the major reasons behind these giant "virtual" monopolies (limited choice in a regulated environment, so i call them virtual monopolies, as they consist of several super-large companies who are just skating under regulation) gaining so much power is the intellectual property system.
It kills competition more than any law on the books right now, government subsidy aside.[/QUOTE]
Because we both know that any sort of copyright or intellectual property law is going to be overlooked severely. Otherwise, yes, I totally agree. I don't think it's possible to disagree with intellectual property law being fucked right now.
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29078810]Actually our money goes into social programs that actively helps poor people. The people we vote into government agrees with the same philosophically positions as the people do. We can easily talk to our representetives and make sure they actually do as we want. We can at any time look up what they think and decide on what we want to vote for.
Well of course you don't like it that you can't control where the money goes but isn't it better for the entire infrastructure and society that they recieve money? Isn't it better that we have elected representetives that make sure the money goes into what we want? I don't know since America only have two parties to vote for but here in Sweden we have: 8. Alot of people that represents everyone.[/QUOTE]
When you live under a 2 party system and neither system represents you accurately, your points are all very moot. Even people who support one of the two parties in a two party system such as ours are out of luck when there is another party in power.
I would prefer the people decide where their money goes, government programs would need to compete with each other and display real, noticeable results for people to direct their tax dollars in their direction.
At all times, government funding would be allocated according to demand from [b]the people[/b]. I can't imagine a better system than that, really. Please point out the holes in my logic.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078817]once society and government both stop collectivizing and grouping people then we can achieve real progress in civil rights.
it all boils down to the individual, not labeling them as x y or z[/QUOTE]
This is true.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29078820]Elaborate.[/QUOTE]
look at the russian federation and their financial collapse 10+ years ago due to being stripped of the government nanny services they were born with.
you know, after the collapse of the USSR?
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078832]the constitution grants rights to all born persons, im sure you missed my point as well. you also didnt do a good job at elaborating or specifying what you were referring to.[/QUOTE]
yeah, that sure has stopped all racism, sexism, homophobia, "xenophobia"(legal, or illegal immigrants) in the past, yeah?
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078706]"i dont want to sit next to the darkie" isnt at all what ron paul perpetuates.[/QUOTE]
You said "corporations have a right to run themselves the way they want, and government doesn't have any right to mess with them" or something to that effect. I didn't mean to say Ron Paul is racist, I just meant that yes, the government should step in if a corporation is actively discriminating based on race.
So I ask again what will stop monopoly and small wages?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078868]yeah, that sure has stopped all racism, sexism, homophobia, "xenophobia"(legal, or illegal immigrants) in the past, yeah?[/QUOTE]
you have failed to understand that society's attitude towards social differences have vastly improved in such a short amount of time.
[QUOTE=torero;29078871]You said "corporations have a right to run themselves the way they want, and government doesn't have any right to mess with them" or something to that effect. I didn't mean to say Ron Paul is racist, I just meant that yes, the government should step in if a corporation is actively discriminating based on race.[/QUOTE]
From what I usually see, the Libertarian argument is that customers wouldn't go there if they discriminate, forcing the business to accept the discriminated against group.
[QUOTE=torero;29078871]You said "corporations have a right to run themselves the way they want, and government doesn't have any right to mess with them" or something to that effect. I didn't mean to say Ron Paul is racist, I just meant that yes, the government should step in if a corporation is actively discriminating based on race.[/QUOTE]
but that would give the government power to control their way of life/business. i dont agree with that principle.
[editline]10th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29078894]From what I usually see, the Libertarian argument is that customers wouldn't go there if they discriminate, forcing the business to accept the discriminated against group.[/QUOTE]
exactly. the power of social pressure is far greater than any legislation.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078623]too bad ron paul is all in favor of civil liberties that abide by the constitution, and a flat tax rate at his appropriated levels would mean the cutting of so much unnecessary bureaucracy. youre not thinking this through, are you?[/QUOTE]
1. The constitution alone doesn't grant civil liberties to everyone
2. A flat tax rate hurts the poor more than the rich so not only is it a bad idea it's actually anti-libertarian
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29078868]yeah, that sure has stopped all racism, sexism, homophobia, "xenophobia"(legal, or illegal immigrants) in the past, yeah?[/QUOTE]
to be fair the government didn't stop those things either, social advancement made those things a thing of the past (for the most part, anyway). The government can't sign a bill into law that makes people think the same way, only bills in the law that force people to act a certain way.
In fact i would go as far as to say the government allowed the racists the ability to accept pay from the very races they hated, perhaps even saving their businesses in the social climate of today. I'm not saying i disagree with the desire to stop social segregation, just that the means of which it was done is what i don't agree with entirely.
Opening a new debate: Let's say walmart barred all black people from entering it's doors for employment or to consume.
How would this help walmart? How would this hurt individuals?
I'm not a racist, I am white and there's really no skating around that issue and there's really no way to prove I'm not racist, actually, but i have to know. Wouldn't a pro-homosexual, pro-black rights organization make more money today over a racist homophobic one?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29078912]1. The constitution alone doesn't grant civil liberties to everyone
2. A flat tax rate hurts the poor more than the rich so not only is it a bad idea it's actually anti-libertarian[/QUOTE]
1. yes it does
amendment 14, section 1:
[quote]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote]
the civil rights act of 1964 goes into more detail.
2. if the tax rate is at an adequate level for libertarian ideas of government spending, then no, its not a bad idea.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29078849]look at the russian federation and their financial collapse 10+ years ago due to being stripped of the government nanny services they were born with.
you know, after the collapse of the USSR?[/QUOTE]First off, there wasn't any financial collapse in Soviet Union, it was a political collapse. And the government definitely didn't offer any nanny services to its population. Saying that socialised health care is flawed and using Soviet Union as an example is like saying that privatised health care is flawed and using Chad as an example.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29078934]to be fair the government didn't stop those things either, social advancement made those things a thing of the past (for the most part, anyway). The government can't sign a bill into law that makes people think the same way, only bills in the law that force people to act a certain way.
In fact i would go as far as to say the government allowed the racists the ability to accept pay from the very races they hated, perhaps even saving their businesses in the social climate of today. I'm not saying i disagree with the desire to stop social segregation, just that the means of which it was done is what i don't agree with entirely.
Opening a new debate: Let's say walmart barred all black people from entering it's doors for employment or to consume.
How would this help walmart? How would this hurt individuals?
I'm not a racist, I am white and there's really no skating around that issue and there's really no way to prove I'm not racist, actually, but i have to know. Wouldn't a pro-homosexual, pro-black rights organization make more money today over a racist homophobic one?[/QUOTE]
I imagine it would really only depend on the advertising of such a chain.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29078934]to be fair the government didn't stop those things either, social advancement made those things a thing of the past (for the most part, anyway). The government can't sign a bill into law that makes people think the same way, only bills in the law that force people to act a certain way.[/QUOTE]
exactly. president eisenhower put this perfectly during the little rock nine situation by saying something along the lines of "you cant legislate people to like eachother".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
