17 Feb 23
@athousandyoung saidWhy is is that when someone kicks off their post with an insult, they themselves are inevitably the dense one, there needs to be an internet rule like every thread devolves to hitler. Recently we saw soothfast accusing others of being childish while being childish themself.
Don’t be dense. You are a huge proponent of the social contract you just think it has different specifics. The social contract is why you think the goobermint should protect peoples’ lives and property.
It was only recently I corrected you on this and here you are repeating the same mistake, kinda defines dense, you have to agree.
Rights are a moral concept, the source of which is by the nature of what man is. Your rights exist without goobermint, yes there is a role for goobermint in protecting rights but they are not the source. In fact forget cigarettes, car crashes, and suicide, even forget the lives lost to the seizure syrup by far the greatest threat to your life on record is goobermint. Interactions between people are vastly free from goobermint interference, most people simply respect others right to their life and property without calling the goobermint, or threatening to call the goobermint most probably do it with little thought as to why they do it, of course state worshipers would like to claim your neighbor dosesn't murder you because there's a law against it. You and I at least know that not to be true.
At any rate a lot of this could be solved if ZBamboozleFB or kev would just say 'let's see the social contract' both of them have been woefully inept in defining what it is themselves, at least the god botherers have a decent go at defining god when you ask them.
@wajoma saidIt’s in the briefcase with the contract that says the goobermint should perform the role you think it should.
Why is is that when someone kicks off their post with an insult, they themselves are inevitably the dense one, there needs to be an internet rule like every thread devolves to hitler. Recently we saw soothfast accusing others of being childish while being childish themself.
It was only recently I corrected you on this and here you are repeating the same mistake, kinda defi ...[text shortened]... hat it is themselves, at least the god botherers have a decent go at defining god when you ask them.
EDIT - I think I saw the document that gives us rights in there too.
Somewhere across the rainbow in magic pixie dust fairly land. Maybe Plato’s realm of Forms.
17 Feb 23
@athousandyoung said...and repeating the mistake again and thus becoming denser with every word.
It’s in the briefcase with the contract that says the goobermint should perform the role you think it should.
EDIT - I think I saw the document that gives us rights in there too.
Somewhere across the rainbow in magic pixie dust fairly land. Maybe Plato’s realm of Forms.
17 Feb 23
@wajoma saidLet John Locke explain this:
Why is is that when someone kicks off their post with an insult, they themselves are inevitably the dense one, there needs to be an internet rule like every thread devolves to hitler. Recently we saw soothfast accusing others of being childish while being childish themself.
It was only recently I corrected you on this and here you are repeating the same mistake, kinda defi ...[text shortened]... hat it is themselves, at least the god botherers have a decent go at defining god when you ask them.
"Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent;it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man’s consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present case. No body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty is, what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent, and how far it binds, i. e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and thereby submitted to any government, where he has made no expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government."
The Two Treatises of Civil Government Book 2, Section 119
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
17 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidYou may have just avoided all that, and say that everyone must drive on side of the road as dictated by their government.
Let John Locke explain this:
"Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent;it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man’s consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government. There is a common distinction of ...[text shortened]... tion 119
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
As an aside, you could have left out the part of consenting to a government, because if a person is inside of he bounds (Border!!) of that government, they are automatically subject to its laws,,,,,so, why did you type it. Did I miss something in another post!!?!?
17 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidThought I would run this one you boys again, you must have missed it.
How do we pdecide who are the truly homeless, and not freeloading losers who won’t work?
Why wont libs answer this question ?
@athousandyoung saidThanks, good stuff. Never heard Russel's voice before. I think I get that you are saying that the people whom I suggest (with power and money) would be the socialists and thus run things, maybe have a few mansions, eating stone crabs, would be killed by the commies and anarchists.
No it would not be reasonable. The first thing Commies and Anarchists do is line up the landlords, aristocrats and bosses and execute them in mass. Russians shot them, Chinese impailed them with spears, Irish blew them up with car bombs, Spanish cut their throats or buried them alive…
[youtube Bertrand Russel Lenin]6TK9c-caEcw[/youtube]
This begs the question,... if those successful smart people were killed, who would run things? Who? The waitresses in the restaurants? The hard hats at the construction sites? Would not the men in control have to be men of organizational abilities ,etc?? CEOs?
17 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 said"I myself get 'tax cuts', it is all legal."
I myself get 'tax cuts', it is all legal. Why don't our legislators change the law? Notice they never think of it, because it is the nature of capitalism. Farmers would go under without subsidies. Govt assistance and laws which keep corps alive, to make more jobs, and put out 100 brands of cereal, is what capitalism is about. YOU as socialist simply cannot think in tho ...[text shortened]... t the govt. I bet you think about your govt a lot. Esp when you go to the mailbox. Brrrrrrrrrr
There is a fukin difference between young adults getting tax cuts to help them start their lives or small business getting subsidies so they can compete with larger business and expand and mega corporations getting tax cuts to make even more billions or getting research grants to make drugs they then sell at huge markups.
"Why don't our legislators change the law?"
Because they are whores. Buy enough whores as a billionaires and you will save up several times that in taxes and business opportunities.
"Notice they never think of it, because it is the nature of capitalism."
The nature of capitalism is to prop up the ultra rich? You're a moron.
"Farmers would go under without subsidies"
And i am talking about the multi million farms, not about the guy with a few heads of cattle on a tiny patch of land who barely makes enough to survive.
"Govt assistance and laws which keep corps alive"
Oh? What happened to being independent? With making it on your own? It's rugged capitalism for the poor. Social welfare for the rich.
"to make more jobs"
Proven time and again that corporations don't make more jobs if they get tax cuts, they make more jobs when they don't meet the demand. Not to mention that when they do create more jobs, they do so in Vietnam.
"and put out 100 brands of cereal,"
You're a moron.
"YOU as socialist simply cannot think in those terms. You only think of other people's stuff."
You JUST said corporations should be allowed to take other people's stuff (which is what not paying their taxes or receiving subsidies and grants is) Who is the socialist now.
"I us went by a contrition site. The $50/hr hard has were hard at work in the sun. The architect left his air conditioned office and came to the site. He makes abut $2M a year. He looked around, made some comments, and left for the day to meet some friends on the golf course."
You keep offering dumber and dumber arguments. I have learned to just stop being surprised of how dumb you can be.
"Ca you PLEASE tell us what should be done in a situation like this, given the tenor of your arguments, seeking socialistic equality, for lack of a better phrase. "
No, fuk you. I am not wasting my time giving the same answer i gave to your dumb 2 waitress example just so you to fail to grasp it.
"Like, we have the delil owner raking in cash while paying waiters $25/hr."
Oh, we're talking magical unicorns now. Do waiters often make 25/h outside maybe Vegas or the Ritz
"Next you mention fair taxation. What is that, you ever define it. Now is your moment."
Fuk you again. You always ask this, you are always given a straight answer. You ignore it and your senile mind forgets it the next second.
"I'm sorry you dont think the american dream Is alive and well,"
The very logo Trump ran on is that America is not great and he will make it great again. He also said that the american dream is not well. It's why he won, millions of americans being poor, agreeing that they are not seeing the greatness Hillary Clinton constantly told them it's there.
You are agreeing now with Clinton instead of Trump.
"Esp when you go to the mailbox."
Well this shows just what kind of a person you are. You can't conceive someone might be thinking of people other than themselves, of empathising with people less fortunate. You assume I am on welfare. It would surprise you to know that I am quite comfortable. I even have private healthcare from my employer.
What you fail to understand is the concept that I am also covered by the national healthcare everyone has. That I am giving a percentage of what I make to that fund even though I would probably never need it because i am not a fukin sociopath. I understand not everyone is employed by someone providing private healthcare, I understand that something unfortunate might happen to someone and they would lose their healthcare.
I understand that when someone gets cancer, a decent person doesn't ask that someone "Do you deserve to live?"
@zahlanzi saidI'll hit the high points.
"I myself get 'tax cuts', it is all legal."
There is a fukin difference between young adults getting tax cuts to help them start their lives or small business getting subsidies so they can compete with larger business and expand and mega corporations getting tax cuts to make even more billions or getting research grants to make drugs they then sell at huge markups.
"Wh ...[text shortened]... nd that when someone gets cancer, a decent person doesn't ask that someone "Do you deserve to live?"
Tax cuts: Poor folks get child credits, eg, and the list goes on, let's not bore our readers. Seems to work for everyone. Wrong there.
Legislators change the law: So you are saying they are ALL whores? All 500 of them just leave it as it is (cause it works).....not one legislator or senator is on board with you, Zahlanzi. They know something you don't.
Wrong there.
The Nature of Capitalism: How weak can your responses be?! Prop up the rich.???? But don't some rich go broke?,,,and the govt lets them???!/. So weak, Zajlanzi. Neither right nor wrong, because it says nothing, you draw no conclusions . Wrong there.
Farmer subsidies: You are talking about rich farms. Zahlanzi, those farms were scratch farms, at one time. There is, today, some farm in Iowa that will in time also be one of those '[multimillion $ farms' you mention. How will they get that way? Riiiggghht...subsidies. Who is the moron. But of course, you do not have to know how business works , being a socialist. Wrong again.
I have NO IDEA what you mean by your puffy answer on 'Corps don't make more jobs". You don't make sense. Corps make jobs, moron. (Funny, I have never typed that word on the Forum). Wrong again.
"100 brands of cereal'. And you wouldn't believe how many underarm fragrances we have....you would think one would be enough, right? NO.. not in the USA. We are a land of choices, which your 'choice algorithms' could not hold a candle to. You are definitely wrong on that one! YOU ought o drop into any store in this country. At least you are better than Cuba. Sorry to compare you to Cuba.
Construction Sites: (please pardon my typing , hand operation...). I asked you my time-worn question , the rich architect and the $40/hr hard hats. All of you have implied, like in the case of he deli owner who needs to share all profits at the end of day with his staff, that the rich architect should share his millions with the hard hats. Do you believe that? All you said hereinaove is that I have made a dumb argument.?? And you are surprised I am so dumb? Then prove me dumb, should the architect keep all his money,,,,,or, distribute it? You can do this, Zahlanzi. But alas, you will not answer the question .
If you don't, then you lose another paragraph.
Will you answer what 'fair taxation ' is? And 'fair share ' while you are at it. Or lose this one too.
You are a shallow debater to assume I mean "YOU ' going to the mailbox. I mean all socialists who feed on the government. You would qualify as a socialist, so methinks ye protest too much.
Your last ad hominem paragraph is lost on me, a waste of type, and railing about the unfortunate and med care, etc, you need to get a thread going on that, with a subsection of morality and charity, because that is NOT what this discussion is about.
Libs. So you wrapped it up talking about someone with cancer??
17 Feb 23
@zahlanzi saidPS. You have the same health care ‘everyone has’???????? and you say I don’t even understand about your health care …frankly, that tells me enough I would not want your healthcare. I like to pick my own. I’m sorry.
"I myself get 'tax cuts', it is all legal."
There is a fukin difference between young adults getting tax cuts to help them start their lives or small business getting subsidies so they can compete with larger business and expand and mega corporations getting tax cuts to make even more billions or getting research grants to make drugs they then sell at huge markups.
"Wh ...[text shortened]... nd that when someone gets cancer, a decent person doesn't ask that someone "Do you deserve to live?"
17 Feb 23
@averagejoe1 saidWhy? Why should you obey the laws of the government?
You may have just avoided all that, and say that everyone must drive on side of the road as dictated by their government.
As an aside, you could have left out the part of consenting to a government, because if a person is inside of he bounds (Border!!) of that government, they are automatically subject to its laws,,,,,so, why did you type it. Did I miss something in another post!!?!?
To put it another way, what gives the government a legitimate power to restrict your freedom?
@averagejoe1 saidZahlooney bamboozle for brains has dropped 'the social contract', wonder why** :^)
I'll hit the high points.
Tax cuts: Poor folks get child credits, eg, and the list goes on, let's not bore our readers. Seems to work for everyone. Wrong there.
Legislators change the law: So you are saying they are ALL whores? All 500 of them just leave it as it is (cause it works).....not one legislator or senator is on board with you, Zahlanzi. They kno ...[text shortened]... what this discussion is about.
Libs. So you wrapped it up talking about someone with cancer??
Edit: ...and the concept of rights double wonder why*** :
Edit 2: Apologies, hit the wrong quote reply, I was of course replying to zahlooney bamboozle for brains dodge post above.
** Don't worry, it was rhetorical, we all know why.
*** Don't worry, it was rhetorical, we all know why.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
18 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidyour choice to live there
Why? Why should you obey the laws of the government?
To put it another way, what gives the government a legitimate power to restrict your freedom?